There’s a thin line between “puffery” (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puffery) and deceit. Your example strikes me as crossing the line.
"The Funky Knuckles is a world class jazz orchestra made up of genetically enhanced cybernetic super men. They have played at the finest venues around the world delivering mind blowing rhythms and harmonic complexity that will shatter your fragile psyche and leave you drowning in a pool of fresh llama milk. The band members are as brilliant as they are handsome and they have performed with people such as the legendary Phill Aelony. This unstoppable crime fighting squadron will make you dance like a kraken on meth before you burst into tears of joy which can be combined with powder from a ground up cobra skull to synthesize the elixir you need to pass through solid objects."
It's cool, funny, seems appropriate to the band, - and also not meant to be taken seriously, so seems to fit that "puffery" definition. But calling it "just legal lying" would...miss the point.
"In everyday language, puffery refers to exaggerated or false praise. Puffery serves to "puff up" what is being described. In law, puffery is usually invoked as a defense argument: it identifies futile speech, typically of a seller, which does not give rise to legal liability. In a circular manner, legal explanations for this normative position describe the non-enforceable speech as a statement that no "reasonable person" would take seriously anyway."
It seems puffery in both those senses.
Actual puffery comes about because there was a legitimate intent to deceive. As your (accurate) description of the law even implies: it's a defense for advertisers when they are caught being deceptive.