The Boys (TV Show) God Tier should be far higher than 8-B

[Ser_Hakim_Dayne]

"8-B, possibly far higher" or "8-B, likely far higher" rating should definitely be given to the Homelander and other characters that scale/downscale to him.

I'm not just talking about Stillwell's famous statement about the Homelander's immunity to all man-made weapons, but also a statement by Butcher who implied that Soldier Boy and Homelander can only be killed by an H-bomb.
The statements of Stillwell and Butcher contradict each other on one detail (the hydrogen bombs), but the point remains the same. Two statements that state that all or most man-made weapons don't work on Homelander.

The one and only thing that contradicts these statements is Soldier Boy and Queen Maeve who were knocked out by a Building level explosion, but this weird anti-feat also contradicts the Homelander feat which tank without damage a City Block explosion, a feat accepted by all.
So I think there is no reason not to accept this "upgrade".

 

[Dalesean027]

The one and only thing that contradicts these statements is Soldier Boy and Queen Maeve who were knocked out by a Building level explosion, but this weird anti-feat also contradicts the Homelander feat which tank without damage a City Block explosion, a feat accepted by all.
So I think there is no reason not to accept this "upgrade".

His 8-B feat gave him a nosebleed so that's an anti-feat to anything significantly higher tbh, i could be misreading

 

[Propellus]

Stillwell's statement to Homelander's survability is rather a hyperbole than anything as it's not very consistent enough

 

[Ser_Hakim_Dayne]

His 8-B feat gave him a nosebleed so that's an anti-feat to anything significantly higher tbh

Not really.
Homelander took no damage from the explosion.

 

[Ser_Hakim_Dayne]

Stillwell's statement to Homelander's survability is rather a hyperbole than anything as it's not very consistent enough

It's consistent with Butcher's statement (just one detail different) and apart from the Building level anti-feat, there's nothing that contradicts these two statements.

 

[Propellus]

What I'm trying to say is that statement isn't as consistent as the rest of the other feats that the God tiers are currently scaling to. And it hasn't been proven enough whether or not Homelander has survived literally every bomb from other countries.

 

[Ser_Hakim_Dayne]

What I'm trying to say is that statement isn't as consistent as the rest of the other feats that the God tiers are currently scaling to

The God-tier scales to feat 8-B, and in this feat the Homelander takes literally no damage. So in my opinion I don't see any inconsistency in Homelander being superior to City-Block.

And it hasn't been proven enough whether or not Homelander has survived literally every bomb from other countries.

The Stillwell and Butcher statements do not necessarily mean that the Homelander took all the bombs in the world in the face.
It may also just mean that Vought have been experimenting with the US military to have them test all, or nearly all, of their weapons on the Homelander to see how durable it is.

 

[Suigetsuhyugs]

The Stillwell and Butcher statements do not necessarily mean that the Homelander took all the bombs in the world in the face.
It may also just mean that Vought have been experimenting with the US military to have them test all, or nearly all, of their weapons on the Homelander to see how durable it is.

Even if he had access to all the US military weapons doesnt mean they would have anything close to any megaton nuke as those are not actually controlled by the military but the president himself. For what i saw the most powerful non nuclear weapon would be 11 tons which is baseline city block which apparently supports even more that tier.

 

[DaReaperMan]

You know, my first reaction to this thread was "oh **** me"(wait what the F-Bomb is censored? LMAOOOO)

But right now I can see a possibly far higher or some shit

 

[Ser_Hakim_Dayne]

Even if he had access to all the US military weapons doesnt mean they would have anything close to any megaton nuke as those are not actually controlled by the military but the president himself. For what i saw the most powerful non nuclear weapon would be 11 tons which is baseline city block which apparently supports even more that tier.

If Stillwell's statement is an exaggeration (but it can be true and literal too), there's always Butcher's who implies that only H-bombs can be useful against Soldier Boy and Homelander. This means that atomic weapons are ineffective, and these bombs can reach Town level.
And if Vought collaborate with the US military to test their weapons, I see no problem with the president agreeing to test a nuclear bomb, whether hydrogen or atomic.

 

[Suigetsuhyugs]

If Stillwell's statement is an exaggeration, there's always Butcher's who implies that only H-bombs can be useful against Soldier Boy and Homelander. This means that atomic weapons are ineffective, and these bombs can reach Town level.
And if Vought collaborate with the US military to test their weapons, I see no problem with the president agreeing to test a nuclear bomb, whether hydrogen or atomic.

Stillwell's statement is already unreliable and she knew homelander personally and likely had information about homelander's experiments, then what should we talk about Butcher? He might have said only H bombs are useful yet soldier boy was defeated with gas because butcher has no ideia that it could work, it's also possible that gas works on homelander.
Right because we didn't have enough reasons to know the governament hate supers, anyways assume the president would have allowed that is already a stretch since it's already a guess that they used Military weapons on homelander, the military part is just an excuse to why she might have access to a good number of weapons.

 

[Ser_Hakim_Dayne]

Stillwell's statement is already unreliable and she knew homelander personally and likely had information about homelander's experiments

You say that Stillwell's statement is unreliable and then say that she would be reliable about the Homelander's experiments, which therefore suggests that her statement was probably true. In the context of the scene she's not on TV where she can propagandize the abilities of supes, but she's talking to someone who wants to kill the Homelander, a supe that Madelyn herself fears. She has no reason to lie, and these experiences can partly explain Stillwell's fear.
Maybe she was exaggerating and they didn't try nukes, but we don't know if he was exaggerating or not, that's why I put the "possibly" in the post.

And it's exactly the same for Butcher's statement, and the fact that he didn't know that the poison worked partly on the Oldier Boy doesn't contradict anything either, because we're just talking about military armament and bombs here.

Right because we didn't have enough reasons to know the governament hate supers, anyways assume the president would have allowed that is already a stretch since it's already a guess that they used Military weapons on homelander, the military part is just an excuse to why she might have access to a good number of weapons.

We have two almost similar statements that can suggest that, it's more than enough not to call it a "supposition".

 

[Serlock_Holmes]

Also disagree with it due to no feats going that high, while antifeats exist.

 

[Marvel_Champion_07]

I'm not just talking about Stillwell's famous statement about the Homelander's immunity to all man-made weapons, but also a statement by Butcher who implied that Soldier Boy and Homelander can only be killed by an H-bomb.
The statements of Stillwell and Butcher contradict each other on one detail (the hydrogen bombs), but the point remains the same. Two statements that state that all or most man-made weapons don't work on Homelander.

I can agree to a "possibly higher", but nothing more

 

[Ser_Hakim_Dayne]

while antifeats exist

Well, this anti-feat also contradicts the current God-tier, so if it's valid for you it downgrades the God-tier to Building level or something like that.

 

[Suigetsuhyugs]

You say that Stillwell's statement is unreliable and then say that she would be reliable about the Homelander's experiments, which therefore suggests that her statement was probably true. In the context of the scene she's not on TV where she can propagandize the abilities of supes, but she's talking to someone who wants to kill the Homelander, a supe that Madelyn herself fears. She has no reason to lie, and these experiences can partly explain Stillwell's fear.
Maybe she was exaggerating and they didn't try nukes, but we don't know if he was exaggerating or not, that's why I put the "possibly" in the post.

I didn't said it's completely reliable I meant that if something Stillwell would be more reliable than Butcher because or her connection to the Vought while Butcher knows nothing about him.
Stillwell is on Homelander's side she has no reason to mention any kind of weakness, and nukes is not something anyone can find easily and considering he managed to outrun the explosion on Stillwell's AP he might be able to outrun a nuke which would not scale to his durability.

And it's exactly the same for Butcher's statement, and the fact that he didn't know that the poison worked partly on the Oldier Boy doesn't contradict anything either, because we're just talking about military armament and bombs here.

You want to use Stillwell's statement about all man made weapons that poison gas is man made

We have two almost similar statements that can suggest that, it's more than enough not to call it a "supposition".

Both statements are hardly reliable or enough considering that none of them is actually an expert on all man made weapons or on Homelander's physiology, there are also multiple anti feats.
I would be ok with a possibility higher since he took it without damage but would only scale to him since Homelander is supposedly superior to soldier boy.

 

[Emirp sumitpo]

I agree with Suigetsuhyugs' points

 

[Ser_Hakim_Dayne]

I didn't said it's completely reliable I meant that if something Stillwell would be more reliable than Butcher because or her connection to the Vought while Butcher knows nothing about him.

Homelander is publicly known to be invincible, Vought has no reason to hide this from the public (because it's good for propaganda) and the discussion between Stillwell and Butcher proves that the latter tried to look for Homelander's weaknesses (this which makes sense because he seeks revenge).

Stillwell is on Homelander's side she has no reason to mention any kind of weakness

Stillwell says herself that she is afraid of the Homelander, she has everything to gain by eliminating him, because he is sometimes mentally unstable and too powerful for the other members of the Seven to handle.

and considering he managed to outrun the explosion on Stillwell's AP he might be able to outrun a nuke which would not scale to his durability.

It's a possibility

You want to use Stillwell's statement about all man made weapons that poison gas is man made

A gas who only knocked out Soldier Boy, and since the Homelander is stronger it's also possible that he's totally resistant to that poison.

Both statements are hardly reliable or enough considering that none of them is actually an expert on all man made weapons or on Homelander's physiology,

Stillwell probably read the test experiments done on the Homelander, as did Butcher, and Vought probably released it to prove the Homelander's invincibility to civilians. You don't need to have advanced knowledge of weaponry. I have just proved that the two statements of Stillwell and Butcher can easily be explained.

there are also multiple anti feats.

There is only one anti feat, the one I explained in this post

 

[Suigetsuhyugs]

Homelander is publicly known to be invincible, Vought has no reason to hide this from the public (because it's good for propaganda) and the discussion between Stillwell and Butcher proves that the latter tried to look for Homelander's weaknesses (this which makes sense because he seeks revenge).

It's not really good propaganda to say the US army throw a bunch of bullets and bombs at him. Regardless they ain't telling to public that Homelander was born in a lab and experimented on "all man made weapons" considering they wanted to keep the illusion of him being an America normal boy.

Stillwell says herself that she is afraid of the Homelander, she has everything to gain by eliminating him, because he is sometimes mentally unstable and too powerful for the other members of the Seven to handle.

And she also was getting power and money, and being afraid of what he can do is also a reason not to tell any possible weakness. Also should remember that I think it was Stillwell that said the invisible man was invincible we saw how that turned out.

It's a possibility

That is more likely than the president allow for a nuke to be thrown at Homelander

A gas who only knocked out Soldier Boy, and since the Homelander is stronger it's also possible that he's totally resistant to that poison.

Stronger doesn't mean more resistant to poison and even Homelander's strength is not that much above Soldier boy.

Stillwell probably read the test experiments done on the Homelander, as did Butcher, and Vought probably released it to prove the Homelander's invincibility to civilians. You don't need to have advanced knowledge of weaponry. I have just proved that the two statements of Stillwell and Butcher can easily be explained.

So you think they reveled to the public that he was a rat lab experimented with weapons? It's most likely that she is referring to every target he ever faced like how Frenchie started to give a bunch of past experiences when facing other criminals.

There is only one anti feat, the one I explained in this post

He was hurt by queen Maeve and a pencil. Homelander is stronger than Maeve and soldier boy but he can still be hurt by them and butcher too.
If he gets actual feats next season or in Gen v sure give it a better tier on that revision but until then those statements are not reliable enough

 

[Hank_J._Wimbleton_69]

The one and only thing that contradicts these statements is Soldier Boy and Queen Maeve who were knocked out by a Building level explosion, but this weird anti-feat also contradicts the Homelander feat which tank without damage a City Block explosion, a feat accepted by all.
So I think there is no reason not to accept this "upgrade".

If i must be frank Homelander's portrayal seems all over the place. At one issue he hardly punches through concrete and gets stabbed with a metal pole, at another issue he gets knocked out by a bus and bunch of concrete tossed at his head, at another issue he survives a massive explosion. He is kinda inconsistent, i'm not trying to downplay him or something btw.

Not really.
Homelander took no damage from the explosion.

He actually got a cut from it, which makes both of these statements entirely invalid.

 

[Marvel_Champion_07]

At one issue he hardly punches through concrete

Attack Potency =/= Destructive Capacity

gets stabbed with a metal pole

In his ear by a character that is almost comparable to him in AP

 

[Hank_J._Wimbleton_69]

Attack Potency = Destructive Capacity

Oh c'mon Homelander not being able to punch a hole on concrete is obviously an inconsistency

In his ear by a character that is almost comparable to him in AP

If that pole was used with city block level strength wouldn't it be shattered?

Whatever, not any of these matter, i have showed the fact of Homelander getting actually bleed by the said explosion, which makes these statements about Homelander no-selling all weapons in world useless.

 

[Propellus]

Oh c'mon Homelander not being able to punch a hole on concrete is obviously an inconsistency

I wanna mention that characters don't always need to keep destroying shit constantly around them just to keep their current tiers. And either then, AP doesn't translate into DC.

 

[Marvel_Champion_07]

Oh c'mon Homelander not being able to punch a hole on concrete is obviously an inconsistency

Mistyped. Meant to say Attack Potency =/= Destructive Capacity

A character with a certain degree of attack potency does not necessarily need to cause destructive feats on that level, but can cause damage to characters that can withstand such forces. As such it isn't proof of a low attack potency, if a character's attacks only cause a small amount of destruction.

If that pole was used with city block level strength wouldn't it be shattered?

If DCEU General Zod used a metal beam with Small Country level strength wouldn't it be shattered?

 

[Passersby]

Oh c'mon Homelander not being able to punch a hole on concrete is obviously an inconsistency

i feel that pain, god damn i hate that rule

Attack Potency =/= Destructive Capacity

if it's of any value

consider that with that argument, you're going from "homelander did this therefore he is 8B" to "this feat is ignored because obviously he is 8B, and then therefore because it's ignored here, every time he prefroms any feat lower should also be ignored because he is 8B."

basically a circular reasoing fallacy at it's finest you're arguing that he should be 8B because you've already reached the conclusion that he is

if we're arguing from the prepective of if he is 8B then what @Hank_J._Wimbleton_69 provided are valid anti feats

 

[Hank_J._Wimbleton_69]

If DCEU General Zod used a metal beam with Small Country level strength wouldn't it be shattered?

That beam survived sending superman fly away, so no. There is no evidence of the pole Maeve used to stab Homelander

 

[Hank_J._Wimbleton_69]

I wanna mention that characters don't always need to keep destroying shit constantly around them just to keep their current tiers. And either then, AP doesn't translate into DC.

I know that's a rule in wiki but it doesn't make any sense when you think about it, it feels more like it's created just to prevent anti-feats getting used, just my opinion btw. You know those...destroy things, right? If AP =/= DC then why even bother using examples of characters destroying things at all? Or does destructive power suddenly correlate to attack potency when it's making the character stronger, just because?

 

[Propellus]

I know that's a rule in wiki but it doesn't make any sense when you think about it, it feels more like it's created just to prevent anti-feats getting used, just my opinion btw. You know those...destroy things, right? If AP =/= DC then why even bother using examples of characters destroying things at all? Or does destructive power suddenly correlate to attack potency when it's making the character stronger, just because?

Well, those are the rules. And again, like I said before, you don't need to have characters performing the same feats over and over again just for them to keep their tiers.

 

[Jason_Courne]

Hyperboles that contradict each other aside, Eric Kripke has explicitly stated, "Supers cannot survive nuclear radiation, it would fry out the Compound V inside their bodies" (Which is consistent with the onscreen portrayals of Soldier Boy's radiation powers)

So any statements that even remotely imply scaling to nuclear weaponry should immediately be disregarded

 

[Hank_J._Wimbleton_69]

Well, those are the rules. And again

Didn't deny those aren't. I just said my opinion, that's all.

you don't need to have characters performing the same feats over and over again just for them to keep their tiers.

If there is no things that condradict with the said feats than i agree, if not? Than no. A character on three issue lifting a truck with no problem and in one issue they lifting an entire building isn't an inconsistentcy. A character lifting a building in one issue but struggling to lift a truck in an another one is. Homelander's feats (ignoring the ap dc thing) is likely the latter

 

[Passersby]

I know that's a rule in wiki but it doesn't make any sense when you think about it, it feels more like it's created just to prevent anti-feats getting used, just my opinion btw. You know those...destroy things, right? If AP =/= DC then why even bother using examples of characters destroying things at all? Or does destructive power suddenly correlate to attack potency when it's making the character stronger, just because?

that rule is correct, for example, a KI disk having the same energy as a KI ball but the ball is more AOE and the KI saw cuts

or an attack that's meant to be AOE vs an attack concentrated on a single place


where i disagree with it, is when 7C characters punch a wall with all their strenght and don't break it because yes

that's either an outlier, or an anti feat, and you can't convince me otherwise

Well, those are the rules. And again, like I said before, you don't need to have characters performing the same feats over and over again just for them to keep their tiers.

an 8B character failing to punch trough concrete is a valid anti feat, or if inconsistent with other feats, an outlier


otherwise, AP=/= really is just circular reasoning

 

[Hank_J._Wimbleton_69]

where i disagree with it, is when 7C characters punch a wall with all their strenght and don't break it because yes

that's either an outlier, or an anti feat, and you can't convince me otherwise

Again, that's what i find stupid about the rule. Otherwise i agree with you

 

[Lonkitt]

I gotta disagree with this

The statement by Stillwell's hyperbole at best

 

[ByAsura]

I wouldn't even say it's hyperbole, just that it means nothing.

Stillwell didn't say he's physically immune to weapons, she just said the weapons they've already used didn't work. If they used ICBMs, he could've just shot them down or disabled them given that his eyes are multi-megawatt lasers.

The second statement would inherently contradict the through line of the previous statement, because we know that someone largely comparable to HL can be killed by a thermonuclear weapon, meaning it'd at least significantly damage HL.

Plus, nukes aren't typically detonated anywhere near their target, with the exception of the very few amount of underground tests (which produce way too much fallout to be practical) that we've performed. If they did throw him in the middle of a nuclear test to see how strong he is, it's entirely possible that he was kilometres away.

I'd say possibly far higher is reasonable, but I don't agree with something like 7-C.

 

[Serlock_Holmes]

I don't even agree with anything higher than what we have know because we have no feat, a plethora of anti-feats and the only character that said anything relevent was a massive liar trying to sell a merchandise.

 

[Random-Helper323]

I also see another issue with this. Obviously the biggest weapons in the world are nukes, and nukes generate omnidirectional blasts. In other words, inverse square law comes into play. In real life, using a nuke against an enemy like Homelander generally isn't reliable, because he can easily fly outside of its lethal range. If he flies even a few hundred metres away from the epicentre, he will be being hit with an amount of energy in the high tier 9 or low tier 8 range, and he can fly faster than 300m/sec. Without more details regarding his alleged survival of nukes, it's hard to use this as a feat.

 

[Qawsedf234]

Yeah I'm with the others, I don't see backing for an upgrade.

 

[Da3ggman]

Yeah, its a no from me, unfortunately.

 

[Lonkitt]

I don't even agree with anything higher than what we have know because we have no feat, a plethora of anti-feats and the only character that said anything relevent was a massive liar trying to sell a merchandise.

Not to mention that if anything like a nuke was actually used against Homelander, it would've been referenced in some way given how the show heavily focuses on political/historical aspects. A nuke casually being tossed at Homelander couldn't just be swept under a rug

 

[Serlock_Holmes]

Not to mention that if anything like a nuke was actually used against Homelander, it would've been referenced in some way given how the show heavily focuses on political/historical aspects. A nuke casually being tossed at Homelander couldn't just be swept under a rug

Yeah or Homelander himself would have referenced it on one of his many monologues while looking at a mirror.