Well…
Okay, that’s all fine and dandy as long as we’re fans playing continuity cops. Actual writers though, should feel free to patch continuity problems however they need to, even if that eventually means throwing stuff away rather than coming up with even more complicated models to try and patch them. Down that road lies Hawkman… And madness.
I recall, dimly, that in the late 70’s, early 80’s, Hercules lost his mace (in space), & Tony Stark made him a darn good, non-magical, substitute.
When has the lightning harmed anyone but Superman? The only times I’ve ever seen it strike anyone but the Marvels and Black Adam were the various times Cap’s used it to put Supes down, and when Adam used it to restart Atom Smasher’s heart in last month’s JSA. Granted, Al was about 40 feet tall at the time, but he took 3 bolts and was revived, rather than damaged.
Can I submit that:
a) There are physical differences between Mjolnir and Diana’s tiara (one is a big-assed stone hammer, the other a circlet of unnamed (?) metal)
b) Both items are enchanted, possibly to an equal level.
(in Norse mythology, Thor’s hammer was made by the Mountain Dwarves, wasn’t it? Is this still true in the Marvel U? This would mean, regardless of Thor’s godly nature, Mjolnir is enchanted, but not by the powers of Asgard)
(What is the origin of Diana’s tiara? the rest of her equipment is supplied by gods and demi-gods. Is her tiara is godly in nature?)
c) Superman is vulnerable to magic, however, his physical reaction to the two weapons is inconsistent with the physical realities of the weapons, regardless of the mystical nature imbued in either of them.
Could it be that magic behaves differently between the DCU and the Marvel U?
Didn’t Scarlet Witch have problems in the DCU cos of the slightly altered way magic behaves there? (sorry, lots of questions in my hypothesis, a lot of this is only half remembered).
I think we’re reading way too much into this and ignoring the MAN in Super. We’ve seen people in real life catch baseballs with their bare hands; baseballs that had struck them anyother place might have done some damage. I’ve seen a guy or two catch a swung baseball bat, with their bare hands and not break their hands. They were sore and bruised, but not broken.
I think it’s really simple. Superman caught Mjolnir, the same way some guy catches a line drive without a glove. It’s a matter of reflex, skill, strength and a bit of luck. Had Mjolnir been full of sharpen spikes, it would have cut Superman, the same way Diana’s tiara and ANY sharpened magical item would have.
The difference is the structual design of the items and not their magical power.
Yes?
You corrected the continuity comment already, I see, so I’ll bypass that. My argument is thus : Prior to JLA/Avengers, it would have been reasonable to believe either of :
A.) Thor would level Superman in one or two hits from Mjolnir.
B.) Superman could stand up to quite an extended beating from Mjolnir.
The evidence we have at that point would be inconclusive to determine which way it should go. Then, JLA/Avengers happened. And a consensus was achieved amongst the editorial staff of both companies, and the writer Kurt Busiek. It was decided to go with B. This was reasonable, and has set the precedent for any future encounters. You would’ve picked A. That’s too bad. There’re things I’d change about the crossover if I could, but it’s done.
The magical attack DID get past his shields, and he still stood up to it better than a normal human would, and I have evidence. Granted, we haven’t seen normal humans endure an assault of the lightning of Shazam - neither Black Adam nor the Marvels are inclined to kill anybody. However, in Kingdom Come, the lightning was used to pierce the shell of a bomb that had been hardened to render it nigh-immune to all known metahuman powers. The magic of the lightning of Shazam is portrayed as potent enough to frag it anyway. And it’s an object - no special vulnerability to magic.
No, I dismiss him as incorrect. He’d have picked A. Option B is now established “fact”. If he continues to assert A, he’s incorrect.
I mentioned Waid’s background because if there’s anyone on the planet who’s most likely to write Superman consistently with all that has gone before - Waid’s on the shortlist.
Sure, and I’m not even sure how this paragraph came up. We’re not talking about fixes. 
All I’m saying with regard to your earlier point is that if you assume inconsistency when you see an anomaly, there’s no point in investigating.
I’ve never considered fanboy an insult, but the rabid part? While one can use ‘drunk’ to describe somebody in a non-pejorative sense, I can’t think of an instance in which calling someone “rabid” could be anything but. YMMV.
The last of the acquisitions this week include the latest KODT, which I’ve yet to read, and Byrne’s Blood of the Demon, which is a Day of Vengeance tie-in this week. And a fairly tepid one, at that.
We don’t know that the lightning itself fragged it. For we know the lightning may have overloaded the forcefield ( ala Superman) and allowed Marvel to physically destroy the bomb or it may have caused the bomb to detonate simply because it was too much energy or screwed with the controls.
All we know is that it appeared to reflect Superman’s heat vison,yet Superman was still confident he could stop it. We don’t know that they proofed it against Marvel’s lightning and how would you proof against that anyway? Clearly they didn’t because Marvel did destroy it.
Apparently sales were so bad that they wanted to cancel it around issue 7, but Byrne had a contract that guaranteed him that, regardless of sales, the book would go through issue 18 (so it was essentially an 18 issue mini-series that could have been renewed).
I’ve also heard (I didn’t see it, so who knows if it’s true or not) that Robotman appeared in some DC book that I don’t read (maybe Outsiders?) and was seen watching TV with Changeling/Beast Boy. On the TV were panels from Byrne’s Doom Patrol and Cliff was saying “Y’know, when I licensed our adventures to Byrnco Productions for this TV show, I didn’t know that they’d butcher it so badly.”
This is one of those “If it’s not true, it should be.” stories.
And apparently, (from a newsgroup posting I read a while back) Morrison or Johns or Rucka (one of DC’s big hitters, in any case–Morrison, I think) made the comment on their blog that “The second that Byrne’s abortion of a series is over…the very next week after issue 18, you’ll see something that’ll ‘dream, hoax, imaginary story’ the whole thuddingly stupid mess.”
Heh–just like they did with SPIDER-MAN, YEAR ONE. As far as I can tell, not one single lasting change came out of Byrne’s Spidey rewrite–Petey still got a microscope, not a computer, Uncle Ben didn’t meet the thief beforehand, Spidey and Doc Ock were not created in the same thermonuclear explosion that killed hundreds of people in downtown Manhattan, Electro’s Legion of Super-Heroes suit has never (thankfully) been seen again, etc. I suspect the same’ll happen with Doom Patrol.
Cap called down the lightning in rapid succession, not waiting for the bolt to hit before calling the next - and as noted, called down an odd number of bolts, meaning he’d be in human form at the end - with no enhanced Strength to otherwise damage the bomb. The Lightning did the work.
Something hardened against ‘all known metahuman powers’ is hardened against ordinary lightning. (Black Lightning; Lightning, brother of Thunder, from the Teen Titans; The Weather Wizard; etc.) The lightning of Shazam behaves like normal lightning, with a mystical component. (This is to say nothing of its relative intensity - merely its nature. It may hit a lot harder than ordinary lightning.)
But, while the bomb would be shielded from “ordinary” lightning, it is possible that the Shazam-bolt bypasses its shields. This in no way invalidates my point that the lightning will hurt things other than Superman.
To put it another way - if the overwhelming energy was enough to destroy this very durable bomb, it’s more than enough to cook Joe Average. But not, apparently, Superman.
Hardened doesn’t mean indestructible, just tougher; so I’m not so sure that Black Lightning who absorbed a nuclear explosion, refocused it and then destroyed a Imperiex probe; wouldn’t have been able to destroy it.
Still, I agree with your point.
I just consider it a matter of degree. I’m a fan of comics. I’m probably a Legion fanboy. But people who crosspost long comic monologs with yellow/spoilered text, or who argue WW’s tiara vs. Thor’s hammer vs. CM’s lightning – they need a modifier. Maybe something with an X to denote coolness? X-treme Fanboi!
Not with the i on the end, please. 
The word ‘rabid’ just connotes a deficiency of logic or rationality. Given the methodical way we fannish types tend to pick things apart, I think it’s a gross misuse of the word. 
Yeah, it’s just that Superman’s magic vulnerability is such a pet peeve of mine that it’s the first thing I’d address if I were put in charge of Superman. I can’t help but think about it in those terms rather than play the usually fun came of fan scientist. 
I think the problem with it is people’s pre-Crisis preconceptions. If we’d never had the all-but-invincible Superman who could juggle planets, and who was only harmed by Kryptonite and magic - and rather, we had a simply very, very tough fellow, no one would say ‘boo’ when one magic item failed to affect Supes as much as another.
But instead, we have the ‘magic = Superman becomes useless’ meme that influences all thought on the subject.
In the 70s, Superman was vunerable to magic.
Since… mmeh. 90s? Mid-90s, when Byrne was gone and, say, Jeph was writing him?
Superman is no more immune to magic than any other human.
This means that if you hit Superman with a magic bolt of lightning, he will feel like he got hit by a normal bolt of lightning.
If you try to turn Superman into a cat, he will be turned into a cat. He has no super protection against magic, he is simply tough enough to ignore direct physical damage that wouldn’t hurt him any other way.
Diana’s tiara (a weapon of a goddess… and the throwing aspect is known) will cut Superman because of the strength behind it. (It will survive being thrown at Superman because it is magic.)
Thor’s hammer will do the same.
At least, that’s how it was explained to me by this friend who wrote for Fanzine back in the days when it was still up. Makes sense to me.
I knew that would get you.
Debating Superman’s magic resistance, methodically or not, is logical or rational? 
Super-Fanboy! (nod to the most obvious comics-related descriptor)
Hyper-Fanboy! (nod to DC’s (largely-unused?) explanation of separate universes)
Ultimate Fanboy! (nod to Marvel’s ‘revamp’ line)
Fanboy 11! (nod to Spinal Tap)
Certainly. It’s just not practical.