This logic reminds me of rock paper scissors a bit. I thought Byrne's run covered this outright with real world physics. It worries me that this kind of thinking will homogenize the heroes. I like the diversity in means by which the various heroes achieve particular effects. Her not being bulletproof alone need not break her anymore than being bulletproof suddenly makes a hero top tier. Does it?
In what universe does this real world physics logic applies???
It just doesn't make sense in any universe to be able to withstand powerful explosions and not bullets.
Explosions don't cause just heat and a shock wave, the debris can be way sharper than any bullet and travel way faster so this whole sharp things (and bullets are not even sharp) valnurability is ridiculus!
Being bulletproof is just common sense for a being that is supposed to be able to withstand hits by godly beings...
If a bullet penetrates your body like butter then be sure that when you got hit by someone in the superman class and land in the earth , the friction and thousands of sharper than glass debris will transform your body to a pulp if not get it vaporized...
Regarding her bulletproofness, normally I have been considering if there is something about Diana that is sort of like one of those fluids who react to pressure. Like there is a fluid you can literally walk on if you filled a pool with it, but you have to keep moving or you would sink.
So I was thinking that Diana's body is kinda like that, the reason she can shrug off Superman's punches is because his area of impact is big (relatively), while the tip of a bullet is very small. Like as if Diana's toughness increases exponentially with the area of the impact... which would make it possible to take a blood sample of her with a normal needle, but she would be able to shrug off a direct hit from something like a railgun, despite having to deflect normal bullets.
Last edited by Outside_85; 04-25-2017 at 12:11 AM.
People just think for a while before you write something to justify this valnurability ridiculusness, it's not just the punch, it's the landing and the friction with millions of small sharp derbis that would turn her body to a pulp if she is not even tough enough to deflect something like a bullet which is neather sharp neither speedy enough compared to the impact of millions of sharp debris in a landing or an explosion...
Yeah this bullet thing makes no sense. She'd be so physically dense to lift the things she does, and so powerful that she can take hits from godlike beings instead of being atomized... that bullets would be like a puff of wind on her skin.
um, yeah grenade shrapnel is a lot like a bunch of randomly sized and shaped bullets.
well, some of them. Not all grenades are cast from pig iron.
Others actually have preformed projectiles inside them instead of being cast metal.
Anyways, it's possible the writers were simply not thinking of shrapnel. The trope "writers have no sense of scale" isn't really limited to physical sizes.
To me, it makes sense to say that WW takes less damage from bullets and punches than a normal person, but that it does actually still do some damage.
If she's going to be this susceptible to things I think she should have more armor
My point is that Diana's body and skin grows increasingly (or exponentially rather) tougher the larger the area thats struck is.
Like earlier I said you could take a blood sample from her with an ordinary needle because the tip of the needle is so small. But by contrast, say someone threw a steel beam at her like a spear... the force it would be hitting her with is far greater than any bullet could, yet it will almost just bounce off her with almost no damage because the area of her thats getting hit is so much bigger.
With your grenade example... I am honest I dont recall this happening on page, but if Diana were to catch one and cover it with her hands, she could avoid the damage from the shrapnel because of the force the explosion itself is also working on her, not just the shrapnel. Same reason could be used to explain why she can stand in the face of huge explosions (like say Doomsday's blast in BvS) and not suffer any damage despite not covering all of her with her shield.
But likewise, if a grenade just landed near her, then yes, she would have to block the fragments.
She is vulnerable to bullets because they are shaped like male sexual object. There is no other logical explanation how a character who can lift tank can't take force of small object travelling at Mach 1-3.
Sure there is. Mythological characters often have bizarre and nonsensical weaknesses.
I said it on another thread, but I'll say it here too.
1.) Samson: had superstrength. Slaughtered an entire army with the jawbone of an ox. Gets a haircut, and suddenly he's powerless.
2.) Baldur: invulnerable to everything except a tiny sliver of soft wood.
3.) Cu Chulainn: super-powered badass warrior. Fights an entire army for months. Eats dog meat. Dies in the next battle in which he fights.
4.) Meleager: epic hero. Life force was tied to a piece of firewood. Couldn't die as long as it was unburned. It got thrown into the fireplace. He died.
5.) Achilles: invulnerable everywhere......except his one freaking heel. And somehow an arrow to the heel kills him dead.
Though much is taken, much abides; and though
We are not now that strength which in old days
Moved earth and heaven, that which we are, we are,
One equal temper of heroic hearts,
Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.
--Lord Alfred Tennyson--