World's Funnest Mxy against ...

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.



Mr Master
World's Funnest Mxy vs these beings:

One by one, no bfr, no trickery/plot or 4th wall garbage, just power vs power:
(characters use their full abilities save for said restrictions)

Who does he defeat, and who does he lose to: (this isn't a gauntlet)

Anti-Monitor (peak)
Dream (Endless)
Parallax (peak)
Hyperman
Ultimator
Solar (man of the atom)
Anti-Life entity (in its realm)
Wally (god boy)
Hourman (worlogog)
Superman CA
Lucifer
Michael

abhilegend
Beats all of them based on power showings on panel.

Cogito
Team

quanchi112
Originally posted by abhilegend
Beats all of them based on power showings on panel. Lucifer or Michael would defeat him. Quit underrating them.Originally posted by Cogito
Team It's one on one.

JakeTheBank
Can't speak for the others, but the last three should beat him based on implied power and whatnot.

Cogito
Originally posted by Mr Master
Ultimator
Wally (god boy)
Superman CA
Lucifer
Michael

At the very least, I believe these guys win.

abhilegend
Originally posted by quanchi112
Lucifer or Michael would defeat him. Quit underrating them. It's one on one.
That's your job. I said by on panel feats mxy wins.

SquallX
Originally posted by Cogito
At the very least, I believe these guys win.

He already beat Ultimator.

Batman-Prime
In the WF arc he would beat them all, it would be a nonfight, a joke.

Except MAYBE, CA Superman.

Cogito
Originally posted by SquallX
He already beat Ultimator.

He needed Dream's help, and..

Originally posted by Mr Master
no bfr, no trickery/plot or 4th wall garbage, just power vs power

Zack Fair
Mxy erases them from the comic?

biensalsa
On panel display of power backs up Mr. Mxyzptlk

quanchi112
Originally posted by abhilegend
That's your job. I said by on panel feats mxy wins. Based on panel fights Odin beats Oblivion. That's a horrible way to debate. But at least you are consistent.

zopzop
Originally posted by Cogito
He needed Dream's help, and..

That wasn't Dream.

And WF Myx wins.

Galan007
Feat-wise, Mxy trumps any being in comics, imo. I'd like to think the last 3 would defeat him, but none of them (sans perhaps CA Superman, or peak Solar) have the feats to support such a claim.

quanchi112
Originally posted by Galan007
Feat-wise, Mxy trumps any being in comics, imo. I'd like to think the last 3 would defeat him, but none of them (sans perhaps CA Superman, or peak Solar) have the feats to support such a claim. Do you just argue based on feats alone ?

TheGodKiller
WF Mxy .

abhilegend
Originally posted by quanchi112
Based on panel fights Odin beats Oblivion. That's a horrible way to debate. But at least you are consistent.
And? He still has the feats while other don't.

Galan007
Feats are the only full-proof power-gauges we have. If we start ignoring feats, and debate based on our personal opinions or interpretations of a character's powerset, then shit is going to get ugly around here real quick...

TheGodKiller
Originally posted by Galan007
Feats are the only full-proof power-gauges we have. If we start ignoring feats, and debating based on our personal opinions or interpretations of a character's powerset, then shit is going to get ugly around here real quick...

I wouldn't say they are "the only" fool-proof(assuming that's what you meant) power gauges we have . SOME credit should be given to on-panel fights as well .

Otherwise , based on feats alone , Odin is a multiversal cosmic superheavyweight and should be able trump any Celestial under Scathan . However , since the only mainstream on-panel confrontation between these 2 characters tells us otherwise , therefore that's not the case . Same goes for Cube beings .

Galan007
Originally posted by TheGodKiller
I wouldn't say they are "the only" fool-proof(assuming that's what you meant) power gauges we have . SOME credit should be given to on-panel fights as well . Fights=feats. none

iceman24567
Blah Odin effecting the multiverse is horseshit it happened decades ago erm

TheGodKiller
Originally posted by Galan007
Fights=feats. none

Actually not all feats are fights . Although , in general fights are a subset of feats .

Newjak
Originally posted by Galan007
Feats are the only full-proof power-gauges we have. If we start ignoring feats, and debate based on our personal opinions or interpretations of a character's powerset, then shit is going to get ugly around here real quick... shit is already ugly in here no expression

Cogito
Originally posted by TheGodKiller
Actually not all feats are fights . Although , in general fights are a subset of feats .

Anything that happens is a feat. All fights are feats. Moving fast is a feat. Lifting something is a feat. Punching someone or something is a feat. Taking a punch is a feat. Every single action is a feat.

TheMask
Didnt Solar erase the omniverse or multiverse?

Galan007
Originally posted by Newjak
shit is already ugly in here no expression So true.

Originally posted by TheMask
Didnt Solar erase the omniverse or multiverse? Solar destroyed 2 multiverses (the whole of Image and Valiant) at roughly half power.

Feat-wise he is probably the only guy that can compete with Mxy.

TheGodKiller
Originally posted by Cogito
Anything that happens is a feat. All fights are feats. Moving fast is a feat. Lifting something is a feat. Punching someone or something is a feat. Taking a punch is a feat. Every single action is a feat.

And how does any of that contradict what I wrote(to which you replied) ?

quanchi112
Originally posted by abhilegend
And? He still has the feats while other don't. The others don't have any feats ? Are you serious ?

Originally posted by iceman24567
Blah Odin effecting the multiverse is horseshit it happened decades ago erm World's Funnest happened in 2000. I believe Odin did so in 96 iirc. Four years earlier. LOL at cha.Originally posted by Galan007
Feats are the only full-proof power-gauges we have. If we start ignoring feats, and debate based on our personal opinions or interpretations of a character's powerset, then shit is going to get ugly around here real quick... Who said to ignore feats ?

TheGodKiller
Originally posted by quanchi112
Who said to ignore feats ?

A certain someone did(although not to ignore feats altogether) :

Originally posted by quanchi112
Do you just argue based on feats alone ?

quanchi112
Originally posted by TheGodKiller
A certain someone did(although not to ignore feats altogether) : As you can see I clearly don't say ignore feats altogether but they aren't the only end all be thing.

Mr Master
Originally posted by quanchi112

Who said to ignore feats ?
It's all about feats, not about who's simply more powerful.

Here's an example.

Matrix/Merlyn fused the life-force of the Omniverse into tiny crystals,
each crystal representing the life-force of an entire universe.
These crystals are then placed in a device he created called the Celestial Nullifier,
the CN then crushes the crystal, and the universe it represented ceases to exist.

Matrix/Merlyn created Otherworld, a pan-dimensional Universe,
and he also created the Starlight Citadel (an Omniversal Nexus)

Matrix/Merlyn plays with the 616 Multiverse just to train Roma.

The Energy Matrix was collapsing and therefore compressing the Multiverse,
but Merlyn allowed Brian and Excalibur to absorb a fraction of its energy,
and with it, they were able to reverse a freakin Multiversal collapsed.

-------------------------------

Impressive to say the least, these feats of Matrix/Merlyn were ey.

-------------------------------

Jim Jaspers 238 only warped a single Universe ...

... yet 238 JJ > Matrix/Merlyn. hm

Of course, 238 JJ's warp would have twisted the Omniverse just like 616's Jaspers,
but he was stopped before he went that far.

The point is, sometimes characters are able, or meant to do something,
but they never get the chance to do it cause of plot,
and cause the story has to end with the good guys winning.

Could 238 or especially 616 MJJ warp the Omniverse? Yes.

Would they return the Omniverse back to normal once they did that? No.

Is Marvel going to make comics now based on the whims of either Jaspers? No.

So what's the objective? (for the writer)

Stop them before they reach a point, where we wrote, that no one could stop them.

You see where I'm going?

Luckily for Mxy, since he's used as a writer's clown to joke around with,
he does shit that's outlandish, silly and over the top,
and he's cartoonish too which is cute, funny
and why he'll bring back reality unlike others.

quanchi112
Originally posted by Mr Master
It's all about feats, not about who's simply more powerful.

Here's an example.

Matrix/Merlyn fused the life-force of the Omniverse into tiny crystals,
each crystal representing the life-force of an entire universe.
These crystals are then place in a weapon he created called the Celestial Nullifier,
the CN then crushes the crystal, and the universe it represented ceases to exist.

Matrix/Merlyn created Otherworld, a pan-dimensional Universe,
and he also created the Starlight Citadel (an Omniversal Nexus)

Matrix/Merlyn plays with the 616 Multiverse just to train Roma.

The Energy Matrix was collapsing and therefore compressing the Multiverse,
but Merlyn allowed Brian and Excalibur to absorb a fraction of its energy,
and with it, they were able to reverse a freakin Multiversal collapsed.

-------------------------------

Impressive to say the least, these feats of Matrix/Merlyn were ey.

-------------------------------

Jim Jaspers 238 only warped a single Universe ...

... yet 238 JJ > Matrix/Merlyn. hm

Of course, 238 JJ's warp would have twisted the Omniverse just like 616's Jaspers,
but he was stopped before he went that far.

The point is, sometimes characters are able, or meant to do something,
but they never get the chance to do it cause of plot,
and cause the story has to end with the good guys winning.

Could 238 or especially 616 MJJ warp the Omniverse? Yes.

Would they return the Omniverse back to normal once they did that? No.

Is Marvel going to make comics now based on the whims of either Jaspers? No.

So what's the objective? (for the writer)

Stop them before they reach a point, where we wrote, that no one could stop them.

You see where I'm going?

Luckily for Mxy, since he's used as a writer's clown to joke around with,
he does shit that's outlandish, silly and over the top,
and he's cartoonish too which is cute, funny
and why he'll bring back reality unlike others. I see where you are going with this. Myself personally I debate based off of ability/powerset/what's in character/portrayal/feats.

Take Oblivion for example. We know he's extremely powerful. We also know Odin is extremely powerful. Odin has a longer list of feats but everyone knows Oblivion is on an entirely different playing field due to portrayal.

TheGodKiller
Originally posted by quanchi112
As you can see I clearly don't say ignore feats altogether but they aren't the only end all be thing.

And as you can see , I clearly mention "although not to ignore feats altogether" in the parentheses .

Cogito
Originally posted by TheGodKiller
And how does any of that contradict what I wrote(to which you replied) ?

It doesn't. Meant only to clarify.

Frequently on these boards some people have been confused as to what a feat is. Some consider fights to be separate from feats, when, as you put it, they are a type of feat.

quanchi112
Originally posted by TheGodKiller
And as you can see , I clearly mention "although not to ignore feats altogether" in the parentheses . So you have no issue with my logic. Good.

Zack Fair
Meh.

quanchi112
Originally posted by Zack Fair
Isn't that how Quanchi debates most of the time? I remember you making a strong case for "portrayals", Quan ? I give portrayals more credence than feats on the scale of logic.

TheGodKiller
Originally posted by quanchi112
So you have no issue with my logic. Good.

I partially agree with both you and Galan in this regard .

quanchi112
Originally posted by TheGodKiller
I partially agree with both you and Galan in this regard . Galan acts like it's the end all be all. To be fair you need to look at the entire picture.

TheGodKiller
Originally posted by quanchi112
Galan acts like it's the end all be all. To be fair you need to look at the entire picture.

That's why I sated that I only partially agree with him . As well as you .

TheGodKiller
On a second thought , I completely agree with Galan .

Mr Master
Originally posted by quanchi112

"Feats" ... is not the end all be all.

You need to look at the entire picture.
thumb up

The Abraxas arc (amongst others) is a perfect example.

Now, don't get me wrong, I do want to see feats, and I better see feats,
but feats can be performed 'off-panel'
so long as the story/character power-set unquestionably supports the action via dialogue.
(writer's column preferably or an entity of grandiose status)

In Marvel, these 'off-panel' feats can be further strengthened by Handbook corroboration.

There are also other methods to gauge a characters power.

I personally don't support feats that have been stated indirectly
but never happened on panel,
especially if the character has never done anything else
to suggest the capability of said stated feat.

This is where the term "hyperbole" comes in.

There has to be some indication (via indirect feats) that supports a
character's potential as being more than a verbal glamorization.

Protege, never destroyed a universe, does this mean he's incapable of it?

TheGodKiller
Originally posted by Mr Master
thumb up

The Abraxas arc (amongst others) is a perfect example.

Now, don't get me wrong, I do want to see feats, and I better see feats,
but feats can be performed 'off-panel'
so long as the story/character power-set unquestionably supports the action via dialogue.
(writer's column preferably or an entity of grandiose status)

In Marvel, these 'off-panel' feats can be further strengthened by Handbook corroboration.

There are also other methods to gauge a characters power.

I personally don't support feats that have been stated indirectly
but never happened on panel,
especially if the character has never done anything else
to suggest the capability of said stated feat.

This is where the term "hyperbole" comes in.

There has to be some indication (via indirect feats) that supports a
character's potential as being more than a verbal glamorization.

But these are feats nonetheless . What quanchi is trying to imply is that character portrayal also matters as much as feats . Which isn't the case . Otherwise Scathan should be well below Eternity , just based on the fact that he's a Celestial .

Mr Master
Originally posted by TheGodKiller

character portrayal also matters as much as feats .
Which isn't the case .
Otherwise Scathan should be well below Eternity ,
just based on the fact that he's a Celestial .
Well, he's a Celestial from the 31st Century,
and we know he's no ordinary Celestial since he's referenced in the LT's
and Celestial Handbook bios as saving the day against Protege.

Let's not forget, anomalies greater than Eternity have come up before.

That aside, considering the power Protege had,
imo, Scathan must've been an agent of Gallagher's (TOAA) in that story,
cause what Scathan did effortlessly was incredible.

That aside ...

I wasn't saying what you posted.

Galan007
Like I said, feats are the only full-proof variable we have in which to gauge a character's powerset. I never said personal interpretation/opinion regarding said character's powerset is entirely irrelevant--but it simply isn't as accurate of a gauge.

If we use personal interpretation in lieu of feats, then Superman Prime (golden) could very well be the most powerful character ever seen in DC. He had next-to-no impressive on panel feats, but his implied power was HUGE. See what I'm saying?

abhilegend
Originally posted by quanchi112
The others don't have any feats ? Are you serious ?

World's Funnest happened in 2000. I believe Odin did so in 96 iirc. Four years earlier. LOL at cha. Who said to ignore feats ?
They don't have any feat at his level of power as shown on panel.

quanchi112
Originally posted by abhilegend
They don't have any feat at his level of power as shown on panel. They have the power to beat him. I don't argue based on feats alone.

Badabing
facepalm at some of you.

Here are the rules:

Originally posted by Digi
Debating Format

Standard Equipment
Each side starts out with the equipment that they normally and have been shown to consistently carry on them. For example, Daredevil would have his billy-club, but Reed Richards would not have the Ultimate Nullifier.
In a scenario fight, the contestants in whose city/reality the fight takes place are allowed access to any material resources they usually have there or of any team they're active members of, as long as they can reasonably get to them. For example, in a scenario set in the DCU, Green Lantern would have access to equipment in the JLA Watchtower, but not the Titans headquarters.
Beta Ray Bill would not have Scuttlebutt and Batman would not have the Batmobile, unless otherwise noted in the open post.

Basic Knowledge
Each side receives basic knowledge of the other. A good measure of this would be what the general population of the character's homeworld knows. For example, that Superman has a weakness to Kryptonite is general knowledge, but that he's Clark Kent is not.


Full Capacity
It is assumed that each contestant will fight to his/her best ability, but still within the character's personality, unless specified otherwise. That means they will use any powers at their disposal. For example, even though The Flash doesn't clock each of his own opponents in the first millisecond in his own comic, it is assumed that is a viable tactic on this board since it is a proven fact that he possesses that level of speed.
It is also assumed that the characters fight at their optimum levels of ability - not explicitly weakened or unusually powered up for those who have variable power levels.


No Non-canon Sources
Non-canon sources are invalid for evidence. With rare exceptions, comics not in continuity such as Elseworlds, What Ifs, or alternate universes are not used for evidence in debates of a particular mainstream character.

A canon source is one that is regarded as being 'in continuity'. In the example of Star Trek; instances from the series and movies can be used, but books are definitely out. Comic book crossovers are usually unusable as they ignore common sense most of the time (DC vs. Marvel is certainly unusable in some cases in our debates!).

This includes JLA/Avengers. Canon or not, people just aren't going to agree on it in most cases. Besides, there should be plenty of other comics with which to make your point.

Comics released strictly online or on web sites will not be considered proof in the Comic Book Versus Forum.

An obscure interview given by someone involved in a story arc is not proof to refute feats. There have been too many of these so called interviews which go against what's shown on panel. Especially when there is no dialogue to refute what's happening on panel. Most writers are clear with the intentions of the plot and story arc.

This principle extends to characters with multiple versions, alternate timelines, etc. Unless specified by the thread starter, only current-version canon feats are allowed.

Sometimes you all make things more complicated than they need to be.

If there has been no retcon, and an interview goes against what's shown on panel, it's not proof. As long as continuity is intact, the comics trump all.

Some characters have few or no feats. Characters like The Presence, TOAA, Golden Superman, Marvel Celestials, etc. With those characters, we are left with nothing but off panels feats, implied powers or hyperbole. In which case that's what we use, along with any character bios.

I'm also thinking of making a 10-20 year cutoff for feats regardless of continuity concerning mainstream characters. There have been too many reports and arguments about the validity of such feats. Exceptions would be characters who don't appear regularly such as Darkseid, Thanos and some of the DC/Marvel pantheon gods.

I know there are other forums which do things different if people can't abide with KMC CB Vs Forum rules.

abhilegend
Originally posted by quanchi112
They have the power to beat him. I don't argue based on feats alone.
No, they don't.

Sundipped
In the vs forum, fights take precedence.
Especially fights wheras the two being pitted against each other have a common advarsary or have had an encounter with the same being. It can then be decided who was more powerful. Of course context should be noted.

In the absence of fights, feats/handbook verification should be noted. For those with feats but no fights, implied power should be taken into consideration.

In any case, a reasonable medium can still be reached regarding what the said being is capable of.

Mr Master
thumb up

Originally posted by Galan007

Like I said, feats are the only full-proof variable we have in
which to gauge a character's powerset. I never said personal
interpretation/opinion regarding said character's powerset is entirely
irrelevant--but it simply isn't as accurate of a gauge.
There are different types of "feats" though.
Originally posted by Galan007

If we use personal interpretation in lieu of feats, then Superman
Prime (golden) could very well be the most powerful character ever
seen in DC. He had next-to-no impressive on panel feats, but his
implied power was HUGE. See what I'm saying?
That falls under hyperbole cause he's never done anything to suggest he can be considered that powerful.

Example:

Protege never destroyed a Universe.

If we pin him against a Universal buster, or multi-universal buster
does this make him > Protege?

Or do you consider the fact that Protege was about to erase the Cosmics
before Scathan interrupted
& the LT had to augment his power to judge Protege a feat in
Protege's favor that supersedes Universe-busting?

This isn't a joke, I'm truly interested in this what is a "feat" type discussion.

Galan007
Originally posted by Mr Master
This isn't a joke, I'm truly interested in this what is a "feat" type discussion. A feat, imo, is any action a character preforms in a comic book. That's why there are various types of feats: ie. strength, speed, intelligence, durability, stamina, energy projection, fighting skill, etc.

quanchi112
Originally posted by abhilegend
No, they don't. I think Lucifer has the power along with Michael among others. You can disagree all you want. I will continue to remain consistent.

Astner
Originally posted by Badabing
facepalm at some of you.

Here are the rules:



Sometimes you all make things more complicated than they need to be.

If there has been no retcon, and an interview goes against what's shown on panel, it's not proof. As long as continuity is intact, the comics trump all.

Some characters have few or no feats. Characters like The Presence, TOAA, Golden Superman, Marvel Celestials, etc. With those characters, we are left with nothing but off panels feats, implied powers or hyperbole. In which case that's what we use, along with any character bios.

I'm also thinking of making a 10-20 year cutoff for feats regardless of continuity concerning mainstream characters. There have been too many reports and arguments about the validity of such feats. Exceptions would be characters who don't appear regularly such as Darkseid, Thanos and some of the DC/Marvel pantheon gods.

I know there are other forums which do things different if people can't abide with KMC CB Vs Forum rules.
I'd recommend that you'd allow for scaling where there's no ambiguity.

If character A has the same powers as character B, and only the same powers -- i.e. no additional powers --, but character B is more powerful, then A's feats should fall under B's feats as indirect feats.

The argument would go along the lines of: A is more powerful than B, who in turn preformed this feat.

It's far more efficient to generalize the rules than to systematically pick out exceptions.

TheGodKiller
Originally posted by Mr Master
Well, he's a Celestial from the 31st Century,
and we know he's no ordinary Celestial since he's referenced in the LT's
and Celestial Handbook bios as saving the day against Protege.

Let's not forget, anomalies greater than Eternity have come up before.

That aside, considering the power Protege had,
imo, Scathan must've been an agent of Gallagher's (TOAA) in that story,
cause what Scathan did effortlessly was incredible.

That aside ...

I wasn't saying what you posted.

And that is exactly why character portrayal isn't enough . Feats are a sure shot way of knowing what the character is capable of . Else Odin should be omnipotent . Otherwise , Phoenix should be ToAA , based upon what on-panel narration SOMETIMES implies her/it to be . Yet we know that's not the case , considering how Thor has one-shotted an INEXPERIENCED host of the PF before , and how in the most recent issues of AvX , he was able to hold his own against a RILED PF itself .

And why would I post what you said ? Your point was to agree with quan's claim that feats aren't the be all and end all in response to Galan's statement that they were . My point was to agree with what Galan said . One of these is not like the other .

Also , I forgive thee for committing the unforgivable crime thou hath committed , of getting mine thread locked . cool

Mr Master
Originally posted by TheGodKiller

And that is exactly why character portrayal isn't enough . Feats are
a sure shot way of knowing what the character is capable of . Else
Odin should be omnipotent . Otherwise , Phoenix should be ToAA ,
based upon what on-panel narration SOMETIMES implies her/it to be .
Yet we know that's not the case , considering how Thor has one-
shotted an INEXPERIENCED host of the PF before , and how in the
most recent issues of AvX , he was able to hold his own against a
RILED PF itself .
uhh, ... o .. k.

I see what you're sayin, but I don't see how it relates to Scathan.

Also, "Phoenix should be TOAA" is a thought that never crossed my mind,
no matter how much bullshit hype revolves around Phoenix.
This is because Phoenix has never done anything to suggest
it being even a multi-universal entity, so a comment or two without justification is hyperbole.

If it had other feats like,
defeating a significant power that had universal or multiversal influence,
it would give us substance & perspective with which to categorize its power.

----------------------------------


Unlike Phoenix non-action and pure hyperbolic statements about it,
Scathan stomped On Panel the combined powers of
the LT/Protege/Eternity/Hawkgod/Beyonder/Mephisto/Malevolence and GOTG.
Originally posted by TheGodKiller

And why would I post what you said ? Your point was to agree
with quan's claim that feats aren't the be all and end all in response
to Galan's statement that they were . My point was to agree with
what Galan said . One of these is not like the other .
roll eyes (sarcastic)
Originally posted by TheGodKiller

Also , I forgive thee for committing the unforgivable crime thou hath committed ,
of getting mine thread locked .
Not my fault some members run to mods with their tails up their ass,
when they're backed up against a corner.

Funniest hypocrisy is, the person attacking/insulting is the one doing the 'reporting.'

Yea, it's like,
if your interpretation differs from my god-like understanding of these things,
you'll be reported for "trolling" cause it's unacceptable to not swallow what I post,
and although you have On Panel scans as well to defend your case,
with the addition of the writer's support,
it makes no difference, cause I ... am ... uhh, No One really.
(but to an individual or two with some power at kmc, I'm cool)
So my reporting will get the mods to reprimand you publicly based on my fallacious accusation
therefore by default making it seem as though I'm right.

durlaugh

So, now that you understand how that went friend,
back on topic cause this isn't the place.

TheGodKiller
Originally posted by Mr Master
uhh, ... o .. k.

I see what you're sayin, but I don't see how it relates to Scathan.

Also, "Phoenix should be TOAA" is a thought that never crossed my mind,
no matter how much bullshit hype revolves around Phoenix.
This is because Phoenix has never done anything to suggest
it being even a multi-universal entity, so a comment or two without justification is hyperbole.

If it had other feats like,
defeating a significant power that had universal or multiversal influence,
it would give us substance & perspective with which to categorize its power.

----------------------------------


Unlike Phoenix non-action and pure hyperbolic statements about it,
Scathan stomped On Panel the combined powers of
the LT/Protege/Eternity/Hawkgod/Beyonder/Mephisto/Malevolence and GOTG.


And that is exactly why feats , imo , are more important that on-panel narration and/or portrayal . Tell me
this :
If you were to choose purely between feats and character portrayal , which would you choose ?

Originally posted by Mr Master

Not my fault some members run to mods with their tails up their ass,
when they're backed up against a corner.

Funniest hypocrisy is, the person attacking/insulting is the one doing the 'reporting.'

Yea, it's like,
if your interpretation differs from my god-like understanding of these things,
you'll be reported for "trolling" cause it's unacceptable to not swallow what I post,
and although you have On Panel scans as well to defend your case,
with the addition of the writer's support,
it makes no difference, cause I ... am ... uhh, No One really.
(but to an individual or two with some power at kmc, I'm cool)
So my reporting will get the mods to reprimand you publicly based on my fallacious accusation
therefore by default making it seem as though I'm right.

durlaugh

So, now that you understand how that went friend,
back on topic cause this isn't the place.

Alright .

Mr Master
Originally posted by TheGodKiller

And that is exactly why feats , imo ,
are more important that on-panel narration and/or portrayal .
thumb up

Although, I'm not sure if you're referring to Scathan, because ...

Scathan has an uber feat under his belt though, let's just be clear.
Originally posted by TheGodKiller

If you were to choose purely between feats
and character portrayal , which would you choose ?
.
Feats, of course.

Character portrayals are only significant in the ultra cosmic level,
although,
even then there has to be some sort of justification for the "portrayal" to rank them high.

TheGodKiller
Originally posted by Mr Master
thumb up

Although, I'm not sure if you're referring to Scathan, because ...

Scathan has an uber feat under his belt though, let's just be clear.


I originally gave Scathan's example to show that feats are more relevant than character portrayal . Although I'll admit that sometimes my posts can be confusingly worded and cause the reader to understand quite the opposite of what they imply .

Originally posted by Mr Master

Feats, of course.

Character portrayals are only significant in the ultra cosmic level,
although,
even then there has to be some sort of justification for the "portrayal" to rank them high.
thumb up
And that is indeed the Final Truth .

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.