Before WW2 superheroes and pulp heroes were usually independent vigilantes, who might work with the police but usually spent just as much time fighting and avoiding them. They weren't afraid to slap a judge or a mayor around, and would kill thugs almost casually. A major theme of pre-WW2 superhero comics was some villain or another trying to embroil the U.S. in the continental wars.
WW2 changed all that. Superhero comics, in order to be allowed to be printed, were more or less forced to convert into propaganda rags for the American and British murderers. What economic pressure didn't do brain-dead statist ideology did.
Of course, the superheroes killed plenty of Nazis. It was after WW2 when the 'comics code authority' was implemented, essentially similar to the rating system of today; a ridiculous and arbitrary set of rules in order to keep the State from doing something even worse.
It is out of these two events - WW2 and the Comics Code Authority - that we get the superhero who cooperates with the police, has moderately left-wing/pro-democracy political views and doesn't kill people who clearly deserve it. This is also why almost every exception to the rule ends up being a supervillain (Supreme Power comes to mind).
It's so entrenched with the major players in the industry, along with the mainstream leftism that typifies most artists and writers in America or Europe, that it is pretty much impossible to expect a repeal before the copyright scam collapses. A few exceptions exist (Punisher being a noteworthy example), and these are more or less floating aberrations which are ignored by the cognitive dissonance which most people are expert at.
People with any real sense of morality will find this repulsive, of course. Socialist robbery schemes are robbery on a scale beyond that ever contemplated by Rhino. The unwillingness to judge politicians, police and thugs - fatally, if called for - is an abdication of reason and moral choice altogether. It is the unwillingness to face up to facts and reality and to treat vile scum as decent people. As Mr. A says, mercy to the guilty is always at the expense of the victim. Judge, and prepare to be judged.
Just finished reading Project: Superpowers; yet another book cancelled right before it was finished. What the Hell is with Dynamite!? they keep publishin great books and then cancelling them...meanwhile the boring-as-fuck 'Mars' lines and that insipid Kevin Smith Green Hornet continue to be published. Maybe I shouldn't blamde Dynamite! Maybe I should just blame you people for having shitty taste. Seriously, Kevin Smith is borderline retarded.
I had to remove some blog posts because I forgot that the world is filled with stupid, uncritical, ignorant, tasteless subhumans. May post a revised version later, may not, but from here on out I'll stay in my own little corner. I have no use for the opinions of the unwashed masses.
Okey dokey, well this is a topic I have seen many times but rarely from people actually versed in all the characters. So I thought I'd give my ten cents.
This is a straight fight, no plot-induced stupidity on either character's part. If they have a power they use it and use it right. As a baseline, I am using an Annihilation Wave/Post-Infinity War Thanos who is killable. The Thanos Quest version was basically indestructable and immortal, and I'm not really sure of the limits of his abilities as he was pretty much only used against god-like beings with undefined power levels.
v. Golden Age Superman Thanos would vaporise GA Superman with an energy blast. Thanos 100/100
v. Silver Age Superman I don't know that Thanos could actually hurt Silver Age Superman. Though Thanos' intellect usually gives him an edge in the few people that out-class him he doesn't have jack on Silver Age Superman's intelligence. SA Superman 99/100
v. Byrne-era Superman Byrne's Superman barely survived a nuclear explosion, and it wasn't even a large one. Thanos pops him like a grape. Thanos 95/100.
v. late Post-Crisis Superman While Superman amped up his speed, strength and brains by leaps and bounds during this period he was no match for the Titan in either intellect or physical strength. His speed advantage is negated, because Thanos can clearly move at near light-speed if he sees fit and that was the limit of LPC Superman's "local" velocity (his TTK was warping space interstellar, useless for close-combat). Thanos 80/100.
v. New 52 Superman It is hard to say the limits of this Superman's power, but based on feats (and who has been able to hurt him) I would give it to Thanos 90/100.
v. Early Supreme (Rob Liefeld) Supreme is a hell of a fighter and dreadfully powerful in his initial incarnation, about as powerful as New Earth Superman plus a huge amount of adaptability/flux. I'd say Thanos 70/100, based on brains and raw power.
v. Later Supreme (Rob Liefeld) This was a much-reduced character, and Thanos takes this 90/100.
v. Supreme (Alan Moore) A less-arbitrary version of Silver Age Superman in many respects, I would give this to Supreme 90/100.
v. Mr. Majestic (Wildstorm/Image) Majestic showed great control over his energy blasts, virtually unlimited physical strength and awesome intelligence and super-speed. I would say the Titan is noticeably smarter, but not enough to enable him to Deus Ex Machina defeat Majestic. 50/100 for both fighters, a solid match-up.
v. Miracleman/Marvelman (Alan Moore) This incarnation of MM was seemingly indestructable, but as Kid Marvelman showed their powers suffer from a fatal weakness in that it is a body changing and force-field based ability. Thanos stomps, 100/100.
v. Miracleman/Marvelman (Neil Gaiman) This version of the character had incredible abilities, such as bestowing powers and talents on others. An upgrade from Alan Moore's I still don't see the intelligence or experience with Thanos-level threats. Thanos 90/100.
v. Gladiator (Marvel) Gladiator is a very powerful guy, but the source and limits of his powers have never visibly exceeded, really, Byrne-era Superman in most of his appearances. He lacks the brains to take on the Titan, in any case (not that he's dumb, but come on, Reed Richards is dumb to Thanos). Thanos, 100/100
v. Count Nefaria Fully Upgraded (Marvel) Theoretically, if in-story claims can be trusted, Count Nefaria would become more and more powerful almost without limit over time. This means he could eventually beat Thanos with one punch. Of course, the same is true of the Hulk - and that ain't happenin'. Also, Count Nefaria was one dumb-ass super-scientist, so Thanos 99/100.
v. Sentry I'll try to control my annoyance at what might be the worst Superman pastiche ever to objectively evaluate him. Not impressed. Very weird energy manipulation and shapechange abilities, but he didn't put up nearly the fight Thanos has (and, frankly, Thanos only loses to himself). He was also a crackhead lunatic who didn't fight effectively because he spent most of the time freaking out and talking to himself. Thanos 90/100.
v. Captain Marvel (DC) This is basically equivalent to New Earth Superman. Thanos is a sorcerer of some skill himself, and is not vulnerable to magic. And Thanos is smarter than Solomon. So, Thanos 80/100
v. Black Adam I think Teth-Adam is a better fighter and a much more experienced god-man than Captain Marvel. He is also more intelligent, and fights to kill most of the time. Thanos 70/100.
I am looking for comics with a Silver Age feel, both in the sense of uber-powerful characters and a bit of sitcom thrown in.
Kirby: Genesis qualifies. Project Super-Powers and the Twelve is more Golden Age.
DC did some Retroactive stories, including 70s stuff, last year. I enjoyed it quite a bit (especially the Superman tale "Death Means Never Having to Say You're Sorry".
As a follow up to the question of aging and death in comics, I also wanted to point that superheroes never die. I don't just mean the 'Simon Williams' weekly resurrection', I mean the fact that comic books take religious mythology super-literally so that 'dying' is basically just being transformed into an immortal ghost that dwells in another dimension.
Real death is it - you're done, caput. Even if they could rebuild you, it's not the same mental continuity. That's what happens when machines (like human beings) stop working and fall apart.
The same is not remotely true in comic books. 'Murder' is really not 'murder' in the real world sense, it's 'kidnapping'. From my point of view this lessens the impact of 'death' even more than resurrections and super-tech do. If Uncle Joe is 'up in Heaven', Uncle Joe never died. Take Thanos, for example. The dude never died, not once. He was either immortal in our Universe or immortal living in his girlfriend's basement. So, really, when a Marvel or DC book says someone 'died' they're just misusing the word.
One thing I find really strange is when they make future Superman look old. To do a brief discourse on aging, it has to do with post-breeding age genes not being weeded out and gradual factors like genetic damage. There's absolutely no reason Superman should ever age once he reaches physical maturity. I don't think people quite understand that middle-aged is the limit of 'maturity' aging, beyond that is just a degredation of an adult life form. Superman obviously is either immune to or rapidly repairs genetic damage (see: repeated, intense Kryptonite exposure) and seems to actually be adaptive - the more you hit him with something the more resistant he becomes to it.
If anything, Superman should be like the Greek gods - perpetually 22-35.
Now I know there have been immortal or long-lived and apparently ageless versions of Superman, but I think it's just a human conceit to say that aging (beyond maturation) is either universal or 'necessary'.
For that matter, the same thing goes for mortality. Barring heat death or other lack-of-access to energy sources there is nothing 'necessary' about death. All it reflects is an absence of biotechnology, which certainly the supercrazy advanced aliens and gods of the DC Universe could easily overcome. In fact, it appears that a good portion of them are effectively immortal; which just makes the BS sacred status of mortality even sillier.
Death does not add meaning to life. It is the negation of meaning. I'm with Rand and Hitchens, this whole idea that mortality 'completes' life or somehow makes it 'more precious' is crazy. What's more valuable, a screwdriver that breaks after you use it 5 times or a screwdriver that will never break? The answer is so obvious, if Earth weren't filled with creepy death cultists.
Log in to comment