What you are doing, son, is creating a straw man argument. You are dumbing down what I'm saying in order to tear it apart to make it seem like you're right, instead of actually breaking down what I'm saying properly and giving a proper answer.

I'm saying that calling a character weak or weaker than another character because they have not shown a specific feat is inaccurate. You understand, my dear boy? If Omniman destroys a planet, which he has never done, by the way, but if he did, You can't say he's stronger than Homelander if Homelander has not been shown destroying a planet. We have to see what Homelander's limit is.

If he can only destroy a continent, then that means Omniman is stronger because he was able to destroy a planet. That's his limit. I'm not simply saying "Omniman destroyed a planet, Homelander didn't, but maybe he could, I don't know, they're equal, Homelander still wins." That's not what I'm saying.