http://www.comicvine.com/spider-man/4005-1443/
So this would make him stronger than Eddie Brock Venom at least according to the Marvel Handbook in the 90s. Oh wait, Venom got a power up too.Spider-Man has the proportionate strength of a spider, thus allowing him to press 10 tons without effort and much more when under stress.
----------------------------------
After his encounter with the Queen, Spider-Man's strength had been increased to the point where he has become able to lift over 15 tons without effort and after the Other story arc he was able to lift at least 20 tons without effort.
So Parker learnt some martial arts, which kind of makes sense to me for all characters to learn it. So he sounds pretty good with this new "way of the spider" (snigger) fighting style.He began training under Shang Chi to create his own unique martial arts style to make up for his lack of spider sense called the "Way of the Spider". It was then revealed that Shang Chi was instructed by the new Madam Web (Julia Carpenter the former Arachne and Spider-Woman) to secretly prepare Peter for a future threat (Spider-Island). This style consists of among other things, hitting pressure points with Spider Strength, and striking with Spider Speed. This new martial art has considerably improved Spider-Man's H2H capabilities, and so far he has stalemated Julia Carpenter and effortlessly defeated 3 spider-powered individuals in a few seconds during Spider-Island. When he regained his Spider-Sense, he defeated a mutated Kaine who was considerably stronger and quicker than him, and effortlessly trumped a mind controlled Spider-Woman, in handful of blows and kicks.
However it got me thinking, about power ups in general.
1. How often do heroes even think of powering themselves up and why?
In the real world, a nation's military would consider its funding requirements based on the capabilities of potential rivals. This makes sense to me, but I don't get the feeling that super-heroes think that far ahead. Case in point, it took Spider-Man, like 40 + years, er I mean 10 years in the Marvel universe before he decides to even take martial arts lessons. And that was because he was forced to by a situation, ie the temporary loss of his spider sense. Using an example from DC now, when Loeb made Superman even more wanked after training with Mongo, it was because he needed it to face another baddies, and not because it was simply a good idea.
Now there are obvious exceptions with those characters which use technology, such as Iron Man. Also all characters do train for the most part, but I would argue they train to maintain capabilities, not to increase it like the Spider-Man training with Shang Chi example.
In fact we have examples where power ups work disastrously for the heroes. Like Batman's venom storyline, where the Dark Knight just turned into a god damn drug addict using the substance Venom to give him an edge.
This idea about developing the hero's abilities further from the beginning of the adventure doesn't seem very prominent in the superhero genre to be honest. It does seem more prominent in say the fantasy genre.
2. How long will the hero keep their power ups? Will the tendency to revert to the status quo win out? The better question is, why do we need a status quo?
I have seen Thor get powered up to Odin power level, lose it, and then gain it again and more in Avengers Disassembled, and then lose it again (yeah fuck Marvel). What perhaps hurt more about Thor losing his new powers was not just the fact he lost them, but the manner in which he did. That is judged unworthy of them (because suddenly the Odin power totally needs to be worthy yet they have a jerk like Odin possess it ) and then sacrifice it again because plot dictates.
Now I can understand there are power ups, and then there are really big power ups. Spiderman becoming stronger most probably would be allowed to stand. The Thing becoming stronger by working out, yeah why not? Characters on a somewhat higher scale like Thor and Hercules (who both reached Sky Father level) would not be allowed to keep the level. From a story telling POV, yeah it can become problematic. Their usual rogues gallery wouldn't mean much if they can just hand wave them away. So it seems the solution is to just bring it back to the status quo.
However I feel another possible solution is to give them a new rogues gallery of more powerful characters or power up a few of the old enemies. I mean the villains as a general rule outnumber the heroes right?
Another argument I feel why people revert to the status quo is "traditionalism." This character has been this way since inception, and this is what the fans want. To some extent I am not unsympathetic to this idea. Some changes just go too far and becomes a slap in the face to the character. For example when DC changed Wonder Woman in the 70s to become a "secret agent" type character without super powers (because Themiscyra was fading into another dimension and if Diana stayed away from Themiscyra she would lose her powers), or Doctor Octopus replacing Peter Parker as the Superior Spiderman (yeah like we knew that was really going to last) or Azrael replacing Bruce Wayne as Batman etc. These changes might be fun for a bit, but I can see why fans want the old character back. Because they have become invested in the characters they know and love.
However, new changes can in turn become the tradition. For example Superman didn't fly when he first came out. Only leaped tall buildings. Kryptonite took a while to be introduced. Yet today these are accepted parts of the Superman mythos. Changes done right can for the most part appease even some of the traditionalists.
This brings me back to my point about the status quo. Maintaining the status quo is not without a cost. It seems to be we are deliberately reversing character development by depowering these characters back to "base levels." Think of the stories that could be told if Thor or Hercules had new responsibilities with their heighten powers. With great power comes great responsibility and all that stuff. Not to mention it becomes contrived that every time they gain powers, they get depowered because of <insert plot device here>.
It also cheapens the adventure, if what the character did gets undone. Thor when he broke the Ragnorak cycle not only became powerful, he became smart. Arguably in his early days he was a top notch surgeon, build a freaking android so he should be smart anyway, but lets ignore that. Thor with his new found wisdom realised why Loki hated him (with a believable piece of pseudo psychoanalysis), and knew what he needed to do to end the endless cycle of Ragnorak.
For all his trouble he has reverted back to a dumb barbarian almost as bad as Dan Jurgens run of the title. He gets manipulated by Loki again. Really. Oh this time Loki is on the side of angels so its ok.
Asgard gets an All Mother instead of an All Father whose 3 goddesses are just as manipulative as Odin was. Thor ended the Ragnorak cycle, yet Asgard's enemies are back, more powerful than ever * while Thor is back to before in terms of power.
Now I freely admit Thor's power up is only one part of his achievement in the Avengers Disassembled storyline, but to me it is symbolic and representative of this tendency to maintain the status quo which in turns cheapens what the hero did in a previous adventure.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thoughts?
* yes Surtur had magical steam powered machines which wiped the floor with the Celtic Gods. Go figure.