Herochat

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - XerxesTWD

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 420
1
ICT / Re: MCU Spiderman vs MCU Loki
« on: September 24, 2018, 11:40:29 AM »
When I mentioned screwing with Peter's mind, I'm talking about his usual trickery, although I'm curious why you think the Mind Stone wouldn't work.
When he tried to use the stone on stark via the scepter it failed due to it hitting metal/his arc rector. Just figured the iron spider suit would be made from high tech stuff.
I figured it was specifically because the arc reactor was basically bypassing his heart, so Loki's scepter couldn't get the access he wanted. I think if he tried it on Peter and he resisted it would be a willpower thing.

2
ICT / Re: MCU Spider-Man vs Defenders (Netflix)
« on: September 24, 2018, 09:32:32 AM »
In Civil War, Giant-Man backhanded him and he dropped several feet into metal cargo containers and hard concrete.  That dazed him and took him out of the fight, but he was still conscious and only suffered a black eye from it.

In Homecoming, when he went after the first Shocker, he was sucker-punched by the Shocker gauntlet hard enough to crack the concrete pillar behind him.  Then he was dragged behind a van and was eventually slammed into a brick mail post with enough force to shatter bricks.  He was perfectly fine.

Later, he had a ceiling and an air conditioning unit drop on him and only suffered some mild bruising.  He had his original "underoos" on then.

At the end of Homecoming, Vulture snagged Spidey by his talons and slammed him into the ground several times.  Granted, it was a sandy ground and not rock, but considering Adrian did it about 2-3 times in a row, I think it makes up for it.

So yeah, getting smashed into the ground one time is not too far removed from a lot of the other stuff we've seen him go through.  I'm not sure why you put so much stock behind it.  If Thanos started laying into him after the bodyslam and Peter remained conscious, then I'd see your point.  As it stands, he was only hit one time and that isn't very conclusive.
Thanks, those are the specifics I was looking for.

3
ICT / Re: MCU Spider-Man vs Defenders (Netflix)
« on: September 24, 2018, 08:43:44 AM »
I am.  If we are going by what we see of Thanos in the movie, he's more likely to just smack the heroes around in order to finish the mission.  He had a chance to kill Drax, Mantis, Starlord, Cap, Bucky, Okoye, Banner, Falcon, War Machine, Black Widow, Scarlet Witch, Rocket, Groot, Strange, Stark, Nebula, and Spider-Man but didn't.  Hell, he had about 2-3 chances to kill Drax, Mantis, and Starlord a piece but kept letting them live until the Snap  He holds back.

The only times he killed in IW was when someone had to die in order to get a stone (Vision and Gamora) or as retribution after they pissed him off somehow (Loki and Heimdall).  Even when eh stabbed Stark, he only did it to force Strange into giving him the Time Stone, then left them alone when he got what he wanted.

Unless you want to argue that Captain America survived Thanos' hardest punch, then it's much safer to assume Thanos just slammed Peter to get him out of the way and didn't care about putting everything he had into the attack.  At best, Thanos' attack was inconclusive, which means we're still stuck with the Iron Spider armor being mostly untested.
What I'm asking is when was he slammed in the Stark Suit that was comparable or greater to damage from Thanos slamming him into the ground and breaking it? I couldn't find anything to support what you're arguing.

4
ICT / Re: MCU Spider-Man vs Defenders (Netflix)
« on: September 23, 2018, 02:58:36 PM »
We definitely have seen Spider-Man get slammed into the ground. I don't see how that helped you reach your conclusion though.

Why would this time be any different from the other times?
Are you really asking that on a battle board?

5
ICT / Re: MCU Spider-Man vs Defenders (Netflix)
« on: September 23, 2018, 02:46:35 PM »
The only hit I recall was getting body slammed by Thanos, but I can see normal Spidey surviving that as well.
What are you basing that on?

We've seen Spidey getting slammed into the ground before.  Granted, I doubt Thanos was hitting him with everything he had considering he seemed to pull his punches throughout the film such as when he chose to only knock Cap out as opposed to splattering his brains all over Wakanda.
We definitely have seen Spider-Man get slammed into the ground. I don't see how that helped you reach your conclusion though.

6
ICT / Re: MCU Spider-Man vs Defenders (Netflix)
« on: September 23, 2018, 02:41:28 PM »
The only hit I recall was getting body slammed by Thanos, but I can see normal Spidey surviving that as well.
What are you basing that on?

7
ICT / Re: MCU Spider-Man vs Defenders (Netflix)
« on: September 23, 2018, 02:25:03 PM »
We did this one shortly after Homecoming came out.  Both Iron Fist and Luke Cage had a bit of a power-up since then.  Spidey is still pretty green and has yet to have a solid win over a major character.  The Defenders should be able to use their superior skill, numbers, and experience to beat him.

As for suits, the Iron-Spider armor didn't seem to offer anything different from his normal Stark costume other than an extra set of spider-limbs and allows him to breathe in high altitude areas.  Still, the Stark suits are both a step up from his homemade costume.
It also increased his overall durability dramatically.

Y'think?  I never got that impression.
You'd have to see the movie to know what I'm talking about. He takes a hell of a lot more than the Vulture or Cap's Avengers were dishing out.

8
ICT / Re: MCU Spider-Man vs Defenders (Netflix)
« on: September 23, 2018, 12:20:17 PM »
We did this one shortly after Homecoming came out.  Both Iron Fist and Luke Cage had a bit of a power-up since then.  Spidey is still pretty green and has yet to have a solid win over a major character.  The Defenders should be able to use their superior skill, numbers, and experience to beat him.

As for suits, the Iron-Spider armor didn't seem to offer anything different from his normal Stark costume other than an extra set of spider-limbs and allows him to breathe in high altitude areas.  Still, the Stark suits are both a step up from his homemade costume.
It also increased his overall durability dramatically.

9
ICT / Re: MCU Spider-Man vs Defenders (Netflix)
« on: September 23, 2018, 11:44:12 AM »
Spider-Man can dominate this, but the Defenders have a much better chance, depending on the suit.

Defenders win ratio
Homemade: 5-6/10
Stark Suit: 3/10
Spider-Armor: 1/10

10
Music, Movies, Tv and Books / Re: Has Pixar lost its charm?
« on: September 22, 2018, 10:42:59 PM »
Definitely not. This is a stupid question.

11
Debate / Re: The Deficit should we care
« on: September 22, 2018, 04:33:11 PM »
https://econproph.com/2011/07/14/private-debt-vs-government-debt/amp/

This guy does a solid job of breaking down the difference.

Quote
It means government debt is not like private debt. Government debt need never be paid off.  It can be rolled-over.  As bonds become due, they are replaced with new bonds. Households can’t always do that. Governments cannot be “foreclosed” or “repossessed”.  Households and their goods can be.  Households and private firms can go bankrupt and default.  Sovereign governments only default when they choose to do so.  Historically the only known instance of a sovereign, floating currency issuing government defaulting was Japan in WWII, but that was deliberate.  U.S. and British banks held much of the debt and they were at war.  Some Republicans (example: Ron Paul) have recently been suggesting the U.S. default, but it’s still possible that grown-ups will prevail.  Politicians and ideologically-driven economists and news media have whipped up a frenzy about government debt as being evil.  But it isn’t.  In fact, government debt is necessary to the functioning of a modern financial system. It provides a safe, interest-bearing financial asset.

So if government debt isn’t evil or bad for us, how should we think about it?  Government bonds are best thought of as currency that pays interest and can’t be used at the 7-11 store. So rather than thinking of government debt as just another form of debt like private mortgages, corporate debt, student loans, and credit cards, it’s better understood as just another form of money. It’s a holding pen for idle money.

Much is made in the media about the fact that many “foreigners” hold US government bonds.  Again, the media is trying to create a scary feeling by drawing a false analogy to private debt.  If you’re a homeowner, the bank who holds your mortgage has some power over you, particularly if you don’t make regular payments.  The media want us to feel like some how the “foreigners” have power over our government because they hold the debt.  But that’s false. The foreigners can’t repossess or foreclose on the U.S. government, regardless of whether the government makes payments or not.  Again, government debt is not like private debt.  Private debt is the result of lenders making loans at interest with the goal of making a profit. But government bonds that are owned by “foreigners” are primarily owned by foreign central banks and banks.  They are used as safe reserves, not for the primary purpose of making a profit.  US government bonds are the modern banking world’s substitute for gold.  Foreigners want US bonds because they want a safe, secure asset that earns more interest than stacks of idle paper currency.  It’s not because primarily for profit-making.  If they wanted profits, they would use the money to make loans. Instead they want security.  That’s why they accept interest rates in the 1-3% range.

When somebody tells you that government debt is bad and harmful and we must do everything we can to reduce debt, even if it means high unemployment, remember they have another agenda that they aren’t talking about. It’s scare tactics.

* remember that drastically reduced spending might appear to help make the payments on debts, it also means that somebody else loses their job because their employer isn’t making a sale.  That newly unemployed person now has debt problems too.

12
Debate / Re: The Deficit should we care
« on: September 22, 2018, 04:28:52 PM »
I'd like some clarification on that argument.

The Treaty of Versailles took down Germany. People RIGHTFULLY shit on Hitler, but we can't ignore what made him popular. His resentment of the Treaty of Versailles, blaming the foreign powers for imposing the Treaty on them, is what got him support. When your dollar is worth nothing (which is what happened to Germany), it impacted the poor the most. The cost of milk may not matter to someone whose rich, but someone who is living paycheck to paycheck (or worse, unemployed) feels that pain. Printing money to pay back debt does just that.

You can cite past countries with debt but its hard to point a country that even comes close to the amount of debt the US has. 21 trillion is a hard number for any country despite how entwined America is in the global economy. I believe its largely a saving grace that America's issues would have catastrophic impact on the rest of the world but that doesn't mean we should rest on our laurels. There's some economists that will argue increasing the debt when the economy is down is a way to stimulate the economy. Let's say that's true, does that mean we do it indefinitely? Since W, there have been waves of the economy being good and did we cut the debt at all since? We didn't when the economy was temporarily good under, we didn't when the economy was temporarily good under Obama, and we aren't doing it now when certain numbers in the economy are high. It's impractical and immoral to indebt future generations for short-term stimulus. We are getting drunk on spending.
He didn't elaborate enough for you?

They're flat out not interchangeable methods of managing debt. I'm fine with a degree of deficit spending that actually benefits the populace. Ramping up the world's largest military (by a massive margin) is not my idea of benefiting the populace. It can and should be managed better, but you just can't look at it like a household debt because they're absolutely not the same thing.

13
ICT / Re: MCU Loki vs MCU Defenders
« on: September 22, 2018, 02:57:51 PM »
I’ve a watched it often enough, thanks.
Just weighing in; agree to disagree.
Never!

14
Debate / Re: The Deficit should we care
« on: September 22, 2018, 02:56:25 PM »
Like Rufio pointed out, you can't think of the debt and deficit of a country the same way you do an individual. They operate very differently.

15
ICT / Re: MCU Loki vs MCU Defenders
« on: September 22, 2018, 01:42:51 AM »
Going by how the (short) fight between Loki & Cap went?
The Defenders have this. They have to super strong bricks, two skilled MAs, one of which has a haxx weapon and the other has the iron fist.
You really need to rewatch that fight and remember the difference between the characters in question.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 420