Rumble 13712 Zeus vs. Darkseid

[baneblade]

I have little to no idea what Baneblade is talking about, but if in that huge block of text he's trying to discount feats as not normal incidents like I think he's saying, that's-- surprising to say the least. You were the one who counted PIS in all instances, now are you going back and saying that feats can be discounted depending on the circumstance?

Huge block of text that apparently was not read in entirety then bro?

Its ok, I can clarify the portion you are referring to.

Kain bro was saying that facts counted period. I agree. But to what degree? I never dispelled any facts, but he got that impression. So I tried to clarify, what degree of the fact you could use in a scenario made sense when you see some examples.

So, if you count feats by way of facts as they are:

1) Is Spiderman in Ironman, or Wonderman's strength class?

2) Does Superman 'exert' while pushing lesser weight and smile when moving significantly more weight?

3) for that matter, will Spiderman defeat Nova every time they meet?

4) Will Captain America beat Hulk every time they meet?

5) Will Superman withstand kryptonite for a prolonged period while fighting a Doomsday villain every time

6) How about the fact that magnetism manipulates/affects most metals; in that, a scribe once discounted Wolverine's every attack on Magneto, who of all, is the Master of magnetism. Fact: Magnetism over 'affactable' metal, by which advantage Magneto forced the very admantium out of Wolverine's body once, which to me, logically was not PIS. So, did, or will Magneto do that every time he faces off Wolverine in combat?

Go ahead and asnwer these questions, and perhaps you will see what I implied in a portion of my text. Perhaps your part of concern may be answered bro.

[kainboa]

First off, I've previously asked you not to call me bro, I don't care that you typically use it as a term of respect, I find it annoying.

There's only one person on the forum who is in any position to call me that, and you are not him.

 

Moving on to your points, I won't address them all at this point, as I don't really have the time or energy, but I will eventually get around to them, for now, I'll just address a couple of them.

 

simply using the facts according to you bro, is the right way to debate then? OK, lets pick an example: How strong do you think is Spiderman? Can he lift 'tons' of metal? Yes, how much? 20, 30, at best?

 

Spider-man has a stated strength of 10 tons, and that's usually the general level of strength he exhibits, that's a fact.

Cases where he exhibit higher or lower strength, usually have an explanation for them, which fits the fact of his strength being 10 tons.

 

Mr. Ditko stated it, when Spiderman had to save Aunt May and ended up being buried under a factory-load of metal, and powered out by lifting, and throwing it aside.

 

We see this in the real world, It's called Hysterical strength, where regular people perform great feats of strength that they wouldn't be able to do under normal circumstances, like lifting a car of a member of their family, or wrestling a bear to ensure that their child can get away from it.

 

While you addressed my few concerns, you did the dreaded, pick your statement to debate thing. Never do that bro.

 

Bullsh*t, picking out the various points that are wrong, and then commenting/debating on them is a perfectly valid way of doing it.

 

Comprehend the whole thing.

 

The fact that I'm simply picking out various points that I disagree with, and commenting upon those, doesn't mean that I can't comprehend the whole thing.

 

I among my choices, also mentioned, that if they go one on one, period. You either  missed the part bro, or confused it

 

Actually, I didn't comment on that particular part, because I don't disagree with it, I commented on the part of your 'analysis' where you claimed that Zeus would 'absolute' because I disagree with that part.

The fact that I disagree with one part of your post, yet agree with another, is apparently a concept you have a hard time understanding, what with your talk about "comprehending the whole thing" I hope my explanation has helped you understand this obviously hard concept.

 

Other than that, bro, lets keep the respect going on these threads, name calling, even 'remotely'; ex: 'like a fanboy', or implied sarcasm, showing the other to be 'stupid' or not smart enough, doesnot a debate make, rather outdoes it. You agree with me on this do you not bro?

 

No, if you act like a fanboy, you get called a fanboy, and so on.

I've acted this way the entire time I've been on EF, so it really shouldn't come as a surprise, but since you didn't remember me asking you to not call me "bro", I guess I can't really fault you for not remembering that either, now you know.

 

Finally, as a minor side-note, the posting window, shows the text with a certain format, mainly half a line distance between the various lines, whereas when you actually post, everything is bunched up in a huge block of text, making it all but unreadable.

[baneblade]

First off, I've previously asked you not to call me bro, I don't care that you typically use it as a term of respect, I find it annoying.

There's only one person on the forum who is in any position to call me that, and you are not him.

 

Moving on to your points, I won't address them all at this point, as I don't really have the time or energy, but I will eventually get around to them, for now, I'll just address a couple of them.

 

simply using the facts according to you bro, is the right way to debate then? OK, lets pick an example: How strong do you think is Spiderman? Can he lift 'tons' of metal? Yes, how much? 20, 30, at best?

 

Spider-man has a stated strength of 10 tons, and that's usually the general level of strength he exhibits, that's a fact.

Cases where he exhibit higher or lower strength, usually have an explanation for them, which fits the fact of his strength being 10 tons.

 

Mr. Ditko stated it, when Spiderman had to save Aunt May and ended up being buried under a factory-load of metal, and powered out by lifting, and throwing it aside.

 

We see this in the real world, It's called Hysterical strength, where regular people perform great feats of strength that they wouldn't be able to do under normal circumstances, like lifting a car of a member of their family, or wrestling a bear to ensure that their child can get away from it.

 

While you addressed my few concerns, you did the dreaded, pick your statement to debate thing. Never do that bro.

 

Bullsh*t, picking out the various points that are wrong, and then commenting/debating on them is a perfectly valid way of doing it.

 

Comprehend the whole thing.

 

The fact that I'm simply picking out various points that I disagree with, and commenting upon those, doesn't mean that I can't comprehend the whole thing.

 

I among my choices, also mentioned, that if they go one on one, period. You either  missed the part bro, or confused it

 

Actually, I didn't comment on that particular part, because I don't disagree with it, I commented on the part of your 'analysis' where you claimed that Zeus would 'absolute' because I disagree with that part.

The fact that I disagree with one part of your post, yet agree with another, is apparently a concept you have a hard time understanding, what with your talk about "comprehending the whole thing" I hope my explanation has helped you understand this obviously hard concept.

 

Other than that, bro, lets keep the respect going on these threads, name calling, even 'remotely'; ex: 'like a fanboy', or implied sarcasm, showing the other to be 'stupid' or not smart enough, doesnot a debate make, rather outdoes it. You agree with me on this do you not bro?

 

No, if you act like a fanboy, you get called a fanboy, and so on.

I've acted this way the entire time I've been on EF, so it really shouldn't come as a surprise, but since you didn't remember me asking you to not call me "bro", I guess I can't really fault you for not remembering that either, now you know.

 

Finally, as a minor side-note, the posting window, shows the text with a certain format, mainly half a line distance between the various lines, whereas when you actually post, everything is bunched up in a huge block of text, making it all but unreadable.

First off, I've previously asked you not to call me bro, I don't care that you typically use it as a term of respect, I find it annoying.

There's only one person on the forum who is in any position to call me that, and you are not him.

 

So:

1 – You do know, not merely acknowledge, but do know it is a sign of respect; yet you are annoyed with it. I don’t know if that is rational thought, or impulsive thought. I am used to respecting others, and it may take me a few go’s to embed into my system, that I shouldn’t be ‘in character’ on the posts with you. No disrespect or pun intended.

 

2- I promise to try though, but at the same time, am re-stating, that it is quite odd, that knowing it to be a sign of respect, you are annoyed with it. No hard feelings here though. We are all human.

 

Moving on to your points, I won't address them all at this point, as I don't really have the time or energy, but I will eventually get around to them, for now, I'll just address a couple of them.

 Spider-man has a stated strength of 10 tons, and that's usually the general level of strength he exhibits, that's a fact.

Cases where he exhibit higher or lower strength, usually have an explanation for them, which fits the fact of his strength being 10 tons.

We see this in the real world, It's called Hysterical strength, where regular people perform great feats of strength that they wouldn't be able to do under normal circumstances, like lifting a car of a member of their family, or wrestling a bear to ensure that their child can get away from it.

 

1 – Yes, I myself stated that, or tried to in a manner and perhaps didn’t come across in that context. The bottom line result is, at least to me, is then quite simple: Hard, cold facts are not necessarily the way to debate, always. History, scenarios, convoluted plot points, pivotal feats are not necessarily discarded because they are out of the box, or not standard facts. If Spiderman had taken ‘juice’ of some sort, I would call it an ‘extra’, outside his abilities. He did that by himself. While I know his anguish and mental condition, and his dire consequence drove him to do it, it is still fact, isn’t it? That does not make it a standard fact in every argument does it? Yet, it also does not mean that it can not be used in specific scenarios.

 

2- This is what I was trying to say: If the scenario hits, where his opponent is gunning for his wife or aunt’s life, I might bring up that piece of history, where he accomplished that feat; it would fit into such a scenario. Although referring to it, I would not count that feat as a standard ‘fact’ at that time. Of course, you may or may not agree with it as a fact, but it would still either be an anomaly in terms of ‘fact’, but one that is undeniable as it happened, or it would be that gray area thing, that is there, and can not be argued with, but not necessarily cold hard fact.

 

3 – That said, my bottom line then is; that many folks then will say, that it is not a fact, that Spiderman routinely dodges Nova, or lures him past a gas station; or routinely leads Rhino into a metal wall, or routinely presses a weight that exceeds his stated limits. Some will say, it is. Hence, saying that cold hard facts are just the way to go in a debate is a moot/limiting point. Because, facts are part of the debate, not the turning point of one. I also said, that we are in a gray area here. Perhaps what I am saying is not making sense to you and vice versa; perhaps we are implying the same thing; just our definition of facts or what they encompass in a comic debate, perhaps varies.

 

Bullsh*t, picking out the various points that are wrong, and then commenting/debating on them is a perfectly valid way of doing it.

 

The fact that I'm simply picking out various points that I disagree with, and commenting upon those, doesn't mean that I can't comprehend the whole thing.

I among my choices, also mentioned, that if they go one on one, period. You either  missed the part bro, or confused it

 

Actually, I didn't comment on that particular part, because I don't disagree with it, I commented on the part of your 'analysis' where you claimed that Zeus would 'absolute' because I disagree with that part.

 

The fact that I disagree with one part of your post, yet agree with another, is apparently a concept you have a hard time understanding, what with your talk about "comprehending the whole thing" I hope my explanation has helped you understand this obviously hard concept.

 

1 – You are free to comment on any post, regardless of my saying that, but when you pick points that have by a ‘poster’s’ own further elaboration been encompassed into the explanation, and both stand as a separate argument, and also a part of a whole, there is no need to pick that point and comment on it.

 

2- Ex: If I stated Zeus as absolute in terms of consolidating power with others, being a chief figure among the Olympians, and yet commented in the same post, that it only implied that he ‘consolidated’ power, especially when Olympus is threatened; picking on the point of just separating the comment of him being absolute would not be a very effective point of debate. What would work there is if the entire point was commented on: he is not absolute in ‘any’ sense, not even in terms of consolidating power. Just an example, not saying you commented that way in particular. If you know this, it is fine, if not, then as stated earlier, we would be in a grey area, where we can agree to disagree.

 

3- That said, this post has more been as I expected of our psychological comic sense, than it has been about debating the feats or facts. Happens though.

 

No, if you act like a fanboy, you get called a fanboy, and so on.

I've acted this way the entire time I've been on EF, so it really shouldn't come as a surprise, but since you didn't remember me asking you to not call me "bro", I guess I can't really fault you for not remembering that either, now you know.

 

1 – Ok, that fanboy thing, your pick, your call.

 

2 – I will try and remember, and furthermore, try to be out of habit and character of ‘implying’ respect when I debate with you in the future.  â€˜Coincidentally’ in all stages of school, and then in the mixed fighting training I attended, I met unique people, and they somehow embedded this into me. Not easy to get out or simply avoid.

 

3- I ask though, another question in the element of fairness: While you stated correctly that I might have forgotten you previously asking me not to call you bro (out of respect), and I in the same element, forgot to remember your sarcastic style (forgive me for putting it so concisely there; no harm meant), isn’t it fair then, that you should remember to let go of your sarcasm and your ‘style’ in future posts that are directed toward me? If terms meant to respect bother you, is it fair for some one to ask you to let go of something that whether applied fairly or unfairly, is meant to dish out disrespect? Let me know if that is unfair to ask.

 

I mean not to preach ethics, but may across as such; Remember, the smart thing is, tolerance. That does not mean tolerate disrespect or abuse, but tolerate what is well intended. I am no saint, but I know what I am saying is right. Let me know your thoughts.

 

Finally, as a minor side-note, the posting window, shows the text with a certain format, mainly half a line distance between the various lines, whereas when you actually post, everything is bunched up in a huge block of text, making it all but unreadable.

 

I hope I did better, if not absolutely better in this regard.

[Guest force_echo]

Huge block of text that apparently was not read in entirety then bro?

Its ok, I can clarify the portion you are referring to.

Kain bro was saying that facts counted period. I agree. But to what degree? I never dispelled any facts, but he got that impression. So I tried to clarify, what degree of the fact you could use in a scenario made sense when you see some examples.

So, if you count feats by way of facts as they are:

1) Is Spiderman in Ironman, or Wonderman's strength class?

2) Does Superman 'exert' while pushing lesser weight and smile when moving significantly more weight?

3) for that matter, will Spiderman defeat Nova every time they meet?

4) Will Captain America beat Hulk every time they meet?

5) Will Superman withstand kryptonite for a prolonged period while fighting a Doomsday villain every time

6) How about the fact that magnetism manipulates/affects most metals; in that, a scribe once discounted Wolverine's every attack on Magneto, who of all, is the Master of magnetism. Fact: Magnetism over 'affactable' metal, by which advantage Magneto forced the very admantium out of Wolverine's body once, which to me, logically was not PIS. So, did, or will Magneto do that every time he faces off Wolverine in combat?

Go ahead and asnwer these questions, and perhaps you will see what I implied in a portion of my text. Perhaps your part of concern may be answered bro.

 

Ok, so I still don't get your point here. Are certain feats negligible because they happen in certain, non-repeatable circumstances?

[baneblade]

Ok, so I still don't get your point here. Are certain feats negligible because they happen in certain, non-repeatable circumstances?

Hey there bro Force. How's it going?

 

In regards to your reply, Facts are not negligible, but quite often, not 'anchor' enough to count as routine debate tools. Which makes the point of facts counting period as only way to go, 'mixed' and much more than it seems.

 

Ex: I know and I know you know too, that Cap can not best Hulk on his best day. He will need distractions, extras, or a load of PIS to survive. Yet he downed Hulk, and downed him in his intelligent form. Although that is a fact too, it can not be just used every time Cap and Hulk square off. Yes, in certain unique circumstances, it will work. The circumstance in that case was overwhelming long established facts: Hulk was stated as more 'serene', at that point and place, than he usually is.

 

- So, if it was a straight up fight where a rampaging Hulk invaded Avengers quarters, and I recount the fact that Cap downed him then and co do so again, it wouldn't be right, as Hulk was out of his element. In that case, the scenario, and character mindset counted.

 

- If it is Hulk walking to the quarters and taking on Cap, on an out of the usual suppressed nature, I will give it to Cap again, as the circumstance and history overwhelm the fact that Cap bested Hulk upfront in that unique once in a blue moon instant.

 

That makes the statement that facts, cold hard facts are the way to go, period, a little moot. I only say bro mine, that there is a lot more in comprehension going into a debate than just cold hard facts.

 

Now, just to clarify this thing, and I hope you are not fed up with it, many folks will just take the scenario, and count the whole thing as a 'fact'. I have seen it on debates. I personally think that the easy way is to separate facts ad stats, or bits from feats, rather than mix in a unique scenario in there and call the whole thing a fact, or dispel it all together. Again, that is me, but I am sure a few folks, if not all, will agree with this approach.

 

I have seen brothers debate on this point itself in the past that why is a certain debater just using hard facts, when some of them won't even be wildly applicable in the battle? Just reiterating what some folks said and I agree with them. Debate's nature itself is much more versatile.

[The Void]

Zeus... 

[Guest skadoosh]

Darkseid...

[Guest Dinsdale Piranha]

Ok, now that I've had a little time, here's a little more comprehensive post.  I won't have my usual amount of time for another 4-5 days though

 

That said...

I think this will be my last post on the topic. You like debating a whole lot more than I do.

 

The direction this is taking caught me by surprise. You initially said it was clear from reading the set-up that Darksied should win and that you found it "hilarious" that people would vote the other way. You seem to have abandoned that in favor of picking apart the set-up.

 

I'm not going to work too hard at defending the set up. I made a lot of assumptions and tried to be clear about what was an assumption and my logic in making it. I am not claiming to have "proven" anything about Zeus or that my interpretation is the only valid possibility.

 

As you said, this is clearly not the Zeus of the Orphic myths. I confess, I am not familiar with these and only know about Orphism in a general way. I can understand Baneblade's comments a lot better now that I've read up on that a bit. If he was thinking of the Orphic Zeus then he's right, it would be no contest.

 

On to your comments:

 

 

 

"We also know that Heracles took the weight of the earth from Atlas in his 11th labor. Holding the earth on one's shoulders seems roughly comparable to Superman's feat of benchpressing the weight of the earth repeatedly."

 

No, we do not "know that Heracles took the weight of the earth from Atlas".  Heracles took the weight of the skyfrom Atlas.  And I'd really love to see what data you have, that makes that comparable to Superman benching the weight of the Earth, for 5 days straight.

 

You're right that the myths refer to the "bowl of the heavens" rather than the earth. I was thinking that the idea of Atlas holding the earth was also found in a minority of the myths and chose it because it's a lot easier to quantify the weight of the earth than the weight of the heavens. I still prefer to go that way just out of convenience but, I have some information about holding up the heavens.

 

Virgil, Aeneid 8. 134 ff (trans. Day-Lewis) (Roman epic C1st B.C.) :

"Mighty Atlas who holds aloft on his shoulders the heavenly firmament . . . Atlas who props the starry sky."

 

My first thought was that I'd have to figure out how much the atmosphere weighs, but reading Virgil and a few others made it clear to me that's not what they meant. The "heavens" was the sun, moon, planets and stars, and every other celestial body. There are two obvious ways to interpret this.

 

1)     Atlas is holding up the mass of the entire universe (minus the mass of the earth). This makes Atlas and by extension Heracles and Zeus vastly sronger than Superman or Darksied. According to WolframAlpha.com, the mass of the observable universe is 3.4×10^54 kilograms.

2)     Atlas is holding everything the ancients thought of as the heavens (the visible universe) on his shoulders. This is a little tricky to quantify because Andromeda is visible and it's mass is unknown, but we can simplify a bit. Pretty much everything we see with the naked eye is in the Milky Way Galaxy. The mass of the Milky Way (same source) is 6×10^42 kilograms. this takes a lot more strength than bench-pressing the earth.

 

I came up with a different idea. What Atlas was essentially doing was holding the titans, Ouranos and Gaia apart so they couldn't conceive any children powerful enough to threaten Zeus. When you're braced between two objects holding them apart, you're really only "lifting" the smaller mass. A man who is lifting a barbell is separating it from the earth but he doesn't need to move the mass of the earth to do it, only the mass of the barbell. In this analogy, Gaia is the barbell and Ouranos is the earth, so Atlas only needs to work with the relatively small mass of the earth.

 

I can't say which is stronger, the man who can bench press a weight for four days and only barely   break a sweat, or the man who can hold that same weight on his shoulders for centuries without dropping it. It's two different kinds of effort and I'm not smart enough to figure out how they compare. All I can say is you;ve got two earth-lifters and that sounds like they're roughly in the same ballpark. When you figure a more accurate way to figure it , I'll be interested to hear it.

 

"While there are no stories about Zeus' super speed, he is superior to Hermes in combat and thus probably fast enough to be effective against a super speedster. Again, there is no clear advantage for either combatant."

 

Yea, let's stop assuming for a moment, and actually look at the available data.

 

1. There is not a single mention of Zeus having any measure of "super speed".   If there is no mention of it, at all, then he doesn't have it.  No "ifs" or "buts" about it.

 

It is one of my assumptions and nothing more. As you've demonstrated, I can't prove it because it's never mentioned. We do know that the gods could move from Olympus to earth to Hades in a flash but, as you've demonstrated, that can't be super speed. It can't be teleportation either because there's no mention or explicit description of that either. We're left with a hole in our knowledge that has to be filled with an assumption of some time.

 

2. He(zeus) is "superior to Hermes in combat".  That could mean several different things. It could simply mean that he's a better fighter, that he is more powerful, more versatile, or have more experience.  Without having provided anything to support it(even a direct mention of it), you have instead jumped directly to the conclusion, that it means Zeus can(or even has) defeat Hermes in battle.

 

I am not aware of any story in which Zeus defeats Hermes. I can tell you that, when Typhon attacked Olympus, Hermes and the rest of the Olympians fled in terror except Zeus, who stayed and fought a see-saw battle, initially losing and ultimately winning. Hermes didn't dare to face Typhon directly and the only role he played in the battle was to steal something from Typhon when the monster wasn't watching. Finally, I can tell you that in the Gigantomachy, Zeus killed more of the giants than either Hermes or any of the other Olympians except Heracles. It's not proof positive, but it seems to me likely that Zeus could easily have beaten Hermes in a fight.

 

2a. Let's for a moment go with the interpretation that Zeus has defeated Hermes in battle.  Does that automatically mean that he is fast enough to keep up with his speed?  No, it really doesn't.   Zeus is capable of high-scale Weather Manipulation. That means, that he can set up weather conditions that makes it harder(if not impossible) for Hermes to use his speed advantage(since Hermes doesn't really have anything other than his speed).  Or use his Weather Manipulation for Large-Area attacks.

 

This is interesting. You're accepting my assumption that Hermes had super-speed even though the myths don't explicitly tell us this and don't ever showing him using super speed in combat. They also don't credit Zeus with high-level weather manipulation or ever show him winning a combat by changing the weather. Those powers both seem like reasonable assumptions given what we know about the gods in question, but we're thinking about it in a different way than the ancients did.

 

That said, if you have anything to support your statement(s) that A. Zeus is fast enough(either in actual speed, or just in reflexes) to be effective against a super speedster. and B. that there is no clear advantage for either side. Then I'd love to see it.

 

Nope, those pesky Greeks never put out a Handbook of the Olympic Universe.

 

"This also appears to be true for Olympians. Atlas is the best example but many of the gods have done things that make them seem tireless."

 

1. You haven't provided any actual quotes or examples, to support the statement that "many gods have done things that make them seem tireless".

 

Most of the stories about tirelessness have to do with beings the gods are punishing or beings who serve the gods rather than the gods themselves so the data is limited. Tantalus suffered his punishment endlessly, as did Sisyphus and their punishments demanded unceasing labor. Cerberus guarded the gates of Hades without resting, Charon ferried the dead ceaselessly, Heracles pursued the Cerynitian Hind for a year without either of them resting. The giant Argus guarded Io without resting.

 

I am making an assumption that the Olympians have the same ability as their servants. It is only an assumption and not something I have "proven" but I thought it reasonable enough to include in the write up.

 

and 2. No, Atlas is not "the best example".  Why?  Because Atlas is a Titan, not one of the Olympian Gods.

 

Is it your assertion that the Titans and the Olympians are two different races or types of beings? That would be a strange position to take when you think about how closely they're related. Zeus (as well as Poseidon, Hades, Hera, Demeter and Hestia) was a child of Kronos' brother, Iapetis so he was Zeus' first cousin. (Actually, since Rhea was Iapetis' sister, I suppose Atlas and Zeus are double cousins.)

 

The Olympians and the Titans were two different factions among the gods, not two different species.

 

"The closest thing to Zeus's standard medium would be the classic myths."

 

Well, that's partially true.  There are several "classic myths" in the Greek Mythology, with various traditions having different myths. The orphic myths for example, is part of the "classic myths", but from the outline given in the OP, it is most definitely not the Orphic Zeus we are dealing with here.

 

That's only partly true. You are correct that I am not using the Orphic tradition, but suggesting that the Orphism is just one of many different versions of Zeus is erroneous and misleading. There are not many different versions of Zeus in Greek myth. There are essentially two, the Orphic Zeus and the Zeus of popular religion. The stories of the second differ, but only in details.

 

However, there are different 'feats' that are only shown in certain traditions.  For example, defeating Typhon, was only described in certain traditions, while in other traditions, Typhon was never mentioned at all.

 

Typhon and his battle with Zeus are mentioned by: Aeschulys, Antoninus Liberalus, , Apollonius Rhodius, Diodorus Siculus, Hesiod, Homer, Lassus, Nonnus, Oppian, Ovid, Pankrates, Pausanius, Pindar, Pseudo-Apollodorus, Pseudo-Hyginus, Quintus Smyrnaeus, Stesichorus, Suidas, and Valerius Flaccus (I've probably missed a few.) He is not mentioned in the Orphic myths, but I'm not aware of any other classic source that leaves him out. I would be interested in seeing a list of some of the others.

[Bergy_Berg]

Zeus... 

 

Darkseid...

The best arguments I've seen so far.

[Guest skadoosh]

Well, i was joking. Dunno about the other guy.