Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

full blood lust

who wins

Thanos with one hand, hell with one foot.

i dunno madara can probably take him and the 10 tails too

thanos kills them all with his index finger

You're trolling, I can see it in your eyes. They all get mindraped by him.

thanos has never mindraped an entire planet

No, but he has shattered worlds with his fists.

susanoo>>planet

Thanos beats all of them with Quan and Screampaste's bodies in each hand.

madara vs thanos, the match of the decade

Originally posted by zenzazer
susanoo>>planet lol

Thanos destroys.

I made a similar thread with Superman and the consensus was Narutoverse gets ass raped.

With Thanos its even worse. Sad even.

Originally posted by zenzazer
susanoo>>planet

http://stream1.gifsoup.com/view1/1357165/confused-o.gif

Originally posted by Zack Fair
Thanos destroys.

I made a similar thread with Superman and the consensus was Narutoverse gets ass raped.

With Thanos its even worse. Sad even.

Thanos ain't no Superman boy!

A feral newly reborn unintelligent Thanos running at "arguably" 50% of his capabilities turned the capital planet of the Universal Church of Truth without any tech, into a wasteland.

A race who harnessed faith as a power-source and had "Cardinals" who with force of Intent could make beings lose their minds or do anything they wished.
Think of them as a race of Jesse Custers. And Thanos obliterated them.

I loved Naruto and am struggling to see how the land amasses a force that can corner and take him down before he obliterates them.

Thanos back in the day destroyed a planet fighting Drax he has become more powerful since then. He beat Silver Surfer to death with his barehands

yeah but aizen would pwn the surfer too

lol Silver Surfer evoled an entire planet millions of years and that just a taste of his powers.

how does that help him against aizen who's immortal? aizen's sword would kill the surfer

Originally posted by zenzazer
thanos has never mindraped an entire planet


Yet. He has mindraped people who have resisted telepaths that have mindraped planets though.

It all depends on how the fight starts tbh. Assuming the fight takes place in a neutral universe and under equalization rules, if Thanos gets caught in Itachi or Madara's Tsukuyomi before he does an omniblast/tries to mindrape everyone, he will lose imo.

Plus, Sage of Six Paths is ridiculously powerful if he's being used here. He created the moon out of the earth on his death bed.

Thanos stomps.

Originally posted by TheTyrant
It all depends on how the fight starts tbh. Assuming the fight takes place in a neutral universe and under equalization rules, if Thanos gets caught in Itachi or Madara's Tsukuyomi before he does an omniblast/tries to mindrape everyone, he will lose imo.

Plus, Sage of Six Paths is ridiculously powerful if he's being used here. He created the moon out of the earth on his death bed.

Neither Madara nor Itachi would be able to manipulate Thanos's chakra. It's even more likely that they get caught in Thanos's reverse-Tsukuyomi than the opposite.

Thanos as an Eternal should be able to control his body on the molecular level not to mention he has survived a black hole.

Silver Surfer alone could defeat nautor world more or less Thanos just because someone doesn't mean they can't be turned back into a primitive version of themselfs.

Originally posted by Bentley
Neither Madara nor Itachi would be able to manipulate Thanos's chakra. It's even more likely that they get caught in Thanos's reverse-Tsukuyomi than the opposite.

How does Thanos exactly stop them from manipulating his chakra? He wouldn't even know he's under Tsukuyomi in the first place, not to mention that Itachi's Tsukuyomi is instantaneous in effect.

Plus, what's Thanos going to do vs Totsuka Blade and Shinra Tensei?

Edit: It's not in Thanos' character to outright destroy a planet even when facing a shit ton of enemies. So he'll be crushing people left and right, but the ones who can actually do something (like Nagato, Itachi, Hashirama, Madara, Rikuubito) will be able to prepare their jutsu.

How do you imagine Tsukiyomi compares with the agonizing process of being bonded to the Heart of the Infinite?

And Tsukiyomi can't kill an opponent. At best Thanos is stunned, but Naruto has no attacks that can put Thanos down.

..shurikens?

Originally posted by NemeBro
How do you imagine Tsukiyomi compares with the agonizing process of being bonded to the Heart of the Infinite?

And Tsukiyomi can't kill an opponent. At best Thanos is stunned, but Naruto has no attacks that can put Thanos down.

Uhhh, controlling the Heart of the Infinite is all about willpower. Not to mention that it was TOAA's will for Thanos to obtain it in the first place. Completely different than escaping Tsukuyomi.

Tsukuyomi is meant to kill; you either break out or your life/sanity is on the line. Kakashi was even wondering why Itachi let him live. Kisame also said that he was surprised Kakashi came out alive. So basically, Itachi didn't intend to kill Kakashi at all, but he easily could have. Madara's Tsukuyomi is probably superior to Itachi's.

Plus, how does Totsuka Blade not put down Thanos if he is stunned? A direct contact would end him, regardless of his immortality or insane durability. Seriously :/

http://img35.imageshack.us/img35/4232/u8jn.png

Thanos wins. Deal with it Narutards.

Did I seriously read that anything in Naruto has a chance against a guy who can stomp the piss out of the DBZverse?

What the actual ****?

...I can't do this anymore.

Originally posted by StealthRanger
Did I seriously read that anything in Naruto has a chance against a guy who can stomp the piss out of the DBZverse?

What the actual ****?

I've said this before; I think we can safely assume that Naruto, despite its early days of actually being at least remotely worth a damn, easily has one of the absolute worst canvases in the world. At the very least, they're within the top five.

Originally posted by Sacred 117
I've said this before; I think we can safely assume that Naruto, despite its early days of actually being at least remotely worth a damn, easily has one of the absolute worst canvases in the world. At the very least, they're within the top five. I don't understand what you mean by "worst canvases". Do you mean worse battlegrounds?

Worst characters?...

Originally posted by Jmanghan
I don't understand what you mean by "worst canvases". Do you mean worse battlegrounds?

Worst characters?...

"Fanbases." (I swear, this never happens.)

Edit: Just reread the thread. Lol at the mention of Aizen. He has dick-all to do with this, which amounts to what he could do to Thanos. haermm

Naruto verse wins.

did thanos can blow up multi-solar system ?

thanos stomp

Tanked a multi-light year wide black hole

http://www.narutoforums.com/blog.php?b=17692

There is another refutation of Mike's analysis of the scene in the comment section that was never properly addressed.

http://i.imgur.com/ohbg3z2.png

Q.E.D.

lol.

He's wrong about Thanos always using tech, though. He didn't seem to use any against Odin.. That was straight up durability, and with Odin believing his son Thor was kidnapped or worse..

You're missing the points.
The scene was presented without proper context.
The scene was poorly analyzed.
The formulas used did not apply.
The numbers were improperly plugged into the calculator.As for uberhikari's points, they primarily extend on point 2 but also addresses the fact that even if it had validity it would not be a consistent portrayal of Thanos's abilities.

High end feats don't represent a consistent portrayal, by definition.

But most boards do go by optimum portrayals.

Originally posted by cdtm
But most boards do go by optimum portrayals.
Not really, not by rules anyhow. Either way, what does that have to do with my arguments?

Originally posted by cdtm
But most boards do go by optimum portrayals.

Yeah. Then they call "outlier" when they disagree with it for convenience sake.

Call it characteristic of the OBD and other such stock of pretend analysts to think they can decide what applies and what doesn't just because.

The thing is Thanos surviving a black hole is fully within the terms of the durability he has generally shown. Terrax, a low level herald, survived hiding in a black hole just fine. Does it makes sense in regards to Omega? Not at all, but then Omega was shown as inconsistent at best.

Originally posted by Astner
I'm still curious to what explanation people who still think Thanos could survive an actual black hole have to say about this. Considering Terrax, Dazzler with an amp, Red Shift, Surfer have fought inside one without any real effort, I'd say the artificial black hole damaging Thanos - who is vastly more durable than any of them - probably says that the one he took was more powerful than a "real" one. Because comics.

There's also him taking this while dead without doing any sort of damage.
http://s238.photobucket.com/user/Branlactus/media/Raw%20power/thanos_004.jpg.html

Originally posted by Utrigita
Does it makes sense in regards to Omega? Not at all, but then Omega was shown as inconsistent at best.
Omega's death was definitely not inconsistent at the time. Since in the follow-up series, Thanos vol. 1, Galactus was almost killed by a planetary collision. Thanos even calculated Galactus' odds of survival to be 60%.

So it's very much in line with what was established in the Infinity Abyss.

http://i.imgur.com/7ESPb7Ym.jpghttp://i.imgur.com/LFi0CTBm.jpghttp://i.imgur.com/e5ig8sJm.jpghttp://i.imgur.com/wXg93mrm.jpghttp://i.imgur.com/DepjTidm.jpg

And this was even referenced in the tie-in to Annihilation.

http://i.imgur.com/fHLZRmIm.jpg

Originally posted by Astner
Omega's death was definitely not inconsistent at the time. Since in the follow-up series, Thanos vol. 1, Galactus was almost killed by a planetary collision. Thanos even calculated Galactus' odds of survival to be 60%.

So it's very much in line with what was established in the Infinity Abyss.

http://i.imgur.com/7ESPb7Ym.jpghttp://i.imgur.com/LFi0CTBm.jpghttp://i.imgur.com/e5ig8sJm.jpghttp://i.imgur.com/wXg93mrm.jpghttp://i.imgur.com/DepjTidm.jpg

And this was even referenced in the tie-in to Annihilation.

http://i.imgur.com/fHLZRmIm.jpg

Omega had feasted on three planets before encountering Thanos, and struggled to initially get through one of Thanos forcefields, while Omega supposedly was operating at two times the strength of Galactus... On the other hand we have Galactus while weakened, blasting his way through all of Thanos shields... Then we have the screen with the two colliding planets, you're the math expert here, but I highly doubt that the force of two planets colliding (which was loaded with nuclear weapons and so on but nvm), or a exploding planet for that matter, exceeds the power of a supernova, which Galactus btw tanked without any problems a few issues prior.

Originally posted by Astner
Omega's death was definitely not inconsistent at the time. Since in the follow-up series, Thanos vol. 1, Galactus was almost killed by a planetary collision. Thanos even calculated Galactus' odds of survival to be 60%.

So it's very much in line with what was established in the Infinity Abyss.



And this was even referenced in the tie-in to Annihilation.

Same series:
http://i238.photobucket.com/albums/ff240/Branlactus/Raw%20power/Tech/thanos03_16.jpg
http://i238.photobucket.com/albums/ff240/Branlactus/Raw%20power/Tech/thanos03_17.jpg
http://i238.photobucket.com/albums/ff240/Branlactus/Raw%20power/Tech/thanos03_18.jpg
http://i238.photobucket.com/albums/ff240/Branlactus/Raw%20power/Tech/thanos03_19_20.jpg
http://i238.photobucket.com/albums/ff240/Branlactus/Raw%20power/Tech/thanos03_21.jpg


So we go back to what the two planets colliding was. And Thanos, in your scans attributed not wanting to be there due to the nuclear devices, not the planets colliding.

And considering he tanked these sorts of bombs that took out Galactus' ships, we should be able to firmly conclude that the sizable nuclear device was more powerful:
http://i1134.photobucket.com/albums/m610/sonnendawg/Thanos/16t.jpg

I'd post follow up scans but it's not needed. Bombs take down Galactus' ship that's more durable than planets, and there's wreckage everywhere to indicate the damage happened right by Thanos.

However, those two planets being clashed together also took out Hunger who was tanking Galactus' blasts and was powered by an entire universe:
http://i1134.photobucket.com/albums/m610/sonnendawg/Thanos/20t.jpg

Not to mention Hunger is a dimension eater...

So really, you limit that to planetary when everything indicates that it was more.

But that's not all. Your basic logic here is that a being twice as powerful as Galactus being killed by a planet makes sense because Galactus got damaged by two planets blowing up on him?
How does that mesh together at all in your opinion? How does that make it sound right? If anything that would conflict with the claims of Omega's superiority. The being twice as weak as Omega who was farther weakened in a fight takes something twice as powerful as Omega and isn't KO'ed let alone killed and this should back up Omega as making sense? No

But more context is needed. It was stated that the planet is highly explosive, which should basically be enough to say that it doesn't conflict with anything considering the planet was plot devicey enough to kill a being of this magnitude. That doesn't speak of others, that just speaks of Omega.
Not to mention Omega was only ever stated to be twice as powerful as Galactus when he was on his ship. And from the wording it seemed as though Omega would be in the process of trying to absorb the energy but not have the resources. Which would indicate he's letting it into his body without the ability to control it.
Plus an entire armada is blasting into the core of the explosive planet and their energy has to go somewhere.

There's enough factors to make it different.


With that being said, you're trying to take away from Thanos' feat by using a completely different character from the same story. And considering there's no relation between Infinity Abyss and the Thanos mini, you've opened the gates to just include Starlin. So, with Starlin in mind, let's take a look at Thanos' first real appearance in comics.
http://static.comicvine.com/uploads/original/7/72524/4120474-5373076437-28577.jpg
http://static.comicvine.com/uploads/original/7/72524/4120475-7036049941-29701.jpg

When his first actual appearance in comics is of him tanking a planet blowing up that destroyed either moons or planets nearby, I don't think you can use the excuse of someone else dying from a planet to try and degrade his feats, even in context.



But if you don't believe the context makes up for the feat, or at the very least lazily explains it enough to make it semi acceptable, then what do you think is more plausible going by history:

Thanos being able to survive the event horizon of an every day black hole

Or

A being twice as powerful as Galactus being killed by an everyday planet explosion


Because from that point of view that you seem to be arguing, it seems you'd be using the less logical showing to try and diminish the more logical one according to history. I think Marvel has shown enough that black holes and planet explosions are more than survivable... by the same level beings.

A wholly illogical scene just because it occurred under the same writer doesn't overwrite a logical one.

Originally posted by Astner
You're right. But as you can see, Galactus carefully planned and set up this event. Even Thanos pointed out that "there is some serious science at work here," and there are no hints or indications of that Galactus tanked it.

He set up the whole event in regards to tapping into the core of the planet in order to make the sun go nova to retrive the Infinite Gem. The serious science is obvious a reference to Thanos not having the faintest idea on what is going on. And we have Galactus on panel standing in the middle of the exploding star. That is really all the proof needed. But by all means find a statement of Galactus using a shield or some sorts in there.

Originally posted by Utrigita
He set up the whole event in regards to tapping into the core of the planet in order to make the sun go nova to retrive the Infinite Gem. The serious science is obvious a reference to Thanos not having the faintest idea on what is going on. And we have Galactus on panel standing in the middle of the exploding star. That is really all the proof needed. But by all means find a statement of Galactus using a shield or some sorts in there.
Just because Galactus is inside the exploding star doesn't mean that he's there without defenses or force-fields. It's clearly explained that Galactus used alien technology to carefully set up this event.

Originally posted by Astner
Just because Galactus is inside the exploding star doesn't mean that he's there without defenses or force-fields. It's clearly explained that Galactus used alien technology to carefully set up this event.

So we should just assume that even though nothing is mentioned or even alluded to, Galactus used a forcefield to protect himself? Alien tech to Thanos, not to Galactus.

Originally posted by Utrigita
So we should just assume that even though nothing is mentioned or even alluded to, Galactus used a forcefield to protect himself?
We should assume that he didn't? Especially since he almost got killed by two colliding planets when his ship was down? Come on dude.

Originally posted by Utrigita
Alien tech to Thanos, not to Galactus.
Alien to us, that's all that matters.

Originally posted by Astner
We should assume that he didn't? Especially since he almost got killed by two colliding planets when his ship was down? Come on dude.

First off we shouldn't assume anything beyond what we can support, and the assumption that Galactus protected himself with a forcefield, is nothing but a unsupported assumption, else I'll just assume that Galactus raised his shield but couldn't handle the force of two colliding planets... which makes how much sense? None. Now, does this entire ordeal make sense? Not at all, which I believe was my initial comment, that the portrayal of the characters here are inconsistent at best.

Example: Omega, twice the power of Galactus, after eating three worlds, initial struggles to get through one of Thanos forcefields. Then Omega a few panels later proceeds to oneshot his way through three of Thanos forcefields. Galactus gets damaged by two colliding planets, even when we have seen him standing in the middle of a exploding star, a few issues prior. Does this make sense, not at all imo, but that is comics for you.

Originally posted by Astner


No, Alien to Thanos which cleared illustrated that the technology used by Galactus was beyond Thanos scope of comprehension. Which is all that matters. The only thing Thanos was capable of deducing was that "serious science is at work." That is like Reed saying "I have no idea what Galactus is building" (which he has a couple of times btw)

Originally posted by Utrigita
First off we shouldn't assume anything beyond what we can support, and the assumption that Galactus protected himself with a forcefield, is nothing but a unsupported assumption,
No it's not, because one issue later he is almost killed by two planets colliding.

And it doesn't have to be force-fields, it could be something as simple as energy manipulation. Either way it was a carefully executed event that didn't test Galactus' durability.

There's a reason for why Thanos had Pip take out Galactus' ship before dropping the planet on him.

Originally posted by Utrigita
else I'll just assume that Galactus raised his shield but couldn't handle the force of two colliding planets.
Sure, but he didn't have access to his ship.

Originally posted by Utrigita
.. which makes how much sense? None. Now, does this entire ordeal make sense? Not at all, which I believe was my initial comment, that the portrayal of the characters here are inconsistent at best.
It's not inconsistent. You had two very similar events take place in two related stories with similar outcomes.

Originally posted by Utrigita
Does this make sense, not at all imo, but that is comics for you.
No! You don't get to do that! You can't cherry-pick and say "it doesn't make sense to me, so I'll ignore it."

You provide your explanations and you address the explanations given to you.

Originally posted by Utrigita
No, Alien to Thanos which cleared illustrated that the technology used by Galactus was beyond Thanos scope of comprehension.
If it's alien to Thanos, then it's alien to us, and that's all I need for my argument to hold.

Originally posted by Astner
No it's not, because one issue later he is almost killed by two planets colliding.

And it doesn't have to be force-fields, it could be something as simple as energy manipulation. Either way it was a carefully executed event that didn't test Galactus' durability.

There's a reason for why Thanos had Pip take out Galactus' ship before dropping the planet on him.

Good, find a scan that stats Galactus uses a forcefield in order to protect himself from the star that is going nova, or something that will support your assumption that it was energy manipulation. Which still btw would make zero sense. Galactus can energy manipulate, absorb or redirect the force of a Nova, but not of two colliding planets?

The reason iirc for Galactus ship to be taken out was to ensure that Hunger had nowhere to retreat too.

Originally posted by Astner
Sure, but he didn't have access to his ship.

So now we are assuming that Galactus is incapable of raising a forcefield without having access to his ship? Something his heralds that is equipped with the "thousandth thousandth part" of his power can do? What's next, that Galactus can't eat a planet without his ship?

Originally posted by Astner
It's not inconsistent. You had two very similar events take place in two related stories with similar outcomes.

And yet I have occurences that doesn't match at all. Omega should have blasted his way through Thanos initial forcefield yet didn't. Galactus standing in the middle of a star going nova, yet couldn't handle a planetary collision. Even if we look only at the planets and the following explosions, a weakened Galactus survival stands in contrast to a superior version of himself, in the form of Omega, that died to less.

Originally posted by Astner
No! You don't get to do that! You can't cherry-pick and say "it doesn't make sense to me, so I'll ignore it."

You provide your explanations and you address the explanations given to you.

I didn't say anything about cherry picking anything, or neglecting one showing in favor of the other, so please don't put words into my mouth. What I said was that the showings from my perspective when held against each other, didn't make sense, and that is just sometimes the way comics are.

Originally posted by Astner
If it's alien to Thanos, then it's alien to us, and that's all I need for my argument to hold.

Except it has absolutely nothing to do with you assumption that the technology shielded Galactus, when it's clearly shown and stated on panel, that all the technology Galactus employed did was making the star go nova.

Originally posted by Astner
Technically the Hunger also survived,

but no. Nothing indicates that this was beyond planetary. Just because the Hunger feeds on realities doesn't mean that he has to be particularly durable. I never said Hunger didn't survive, I said "Take out", which he was. He was defeated.

But this goes back to what I was saying. Galactus is beyond planetary all the time. Whether he destroys a planet or not, that's what he is. It doesn't have to be under the same writer or anything. That's simply his average. If Hunger is tanking a pissed off Galactus' power, then he is tanking beyond planetary power.

Yet, he seemed the most durable out of him and Galactus, and he got way more ****ed up.

In fact the scan I presented had him saying that he was backed up by an entire reality at the time and that's why Galactus couldn't do anything. Which plays a lot into durability.

Whether he was universal in durability or not, it doesn't matter. The implication was that he was, but at the very least we know he had a large degree of durability. And he got shitting on by that explosion.

But anyway, the entire time more and more of the Hunger was pouring into reality, so he could be perceived as getting more durable as time went on. Now while that may take away from him being "universal", he was still more powerful than a slightly weakened Galactus by a sizable degree. Even moreso as time went on.

Also, Thanos has always been beyond or at planetary as evidenced by Starlin in his first appearance. If the Hunger is supremely above a vastly more powerful Thanos, then we should still limit him to planetary?
Hell, I know you don't like it, but under a different writer even the herald Nova is a star destroyer. If she's capable of that, then why should Galactus not be above that under another? And why should a being above Galactus be below that? Averages.

Which on that note going back to earlier arguments, the same writer who had Nova destroy a star had Galactus fight In-Betweener in a planetoid level fight. Nova > Galactus/In-Betweener following a large part of your debate.


Originally posted by Astner
It was a planetary explosion with no hints of it being anything greater than it was. Then if that's all it was, then it's a simple low showing. Not that hard.

There's ways to go about this.
Either it was a low showing.
You can attempt to explain it
Or you can use it to somehow say Thanos' feat is pis, even though under the same writer many many beings have survived planetary level destruction.

Hell, even in Thanos' first appearance, one of the weakest Draxes there is survived the planet blowing up. Drax > Omega according to you trying to shove this down Thanos' feathole.

Or you can use the feats without trying to use a contradiction in there. IE a vastly more durable being than Thanos got killed by an explosion, which should speak of the power already.



Originally posted by Astner
Now you're lying.

There is no mention of Omega's ship. Genis-Vell asks "How powerful is Omega?" and Thanos replies "Probably twice as powerful as Galactus."

That's all there is to it. Because he was on his ship the entire time his power was being discussed. All of those "dwarfing Galactus" statements are from a time when he was on his ship.

How am I lying here? Is there untruth to this statement? Was he ever said to dwarf Galactus when he was not on his ship?

Not to mention all the limitations being placed on him in statements immediately after he got separated.

"Even without his ship he possesses incredible power"
"He's got retarded reactions"
"No sense of smell"
"He can't absorb anything because he's stupid"

Etc. The implication being that the giant mechanical ship that he was directly connected to that was glowing with energy kept his power level up.


Originally posted by Astner
Keep in mind that this was also Thanos' strategy against Galactus in the Thanos series we've been discussing; destroy the ship and blow up the planet, which proved to be very effective every time. What?

Thanos destroyed the ship in an attempt to cut Hunger off from the bulk of his being. It had nothing to do with Galactus. Not to mention we've seen Galactus eat planets many times without his craft.

Omega simply wasn't capable apparently of funneling that power into his being safely. But the "Biting off more than he can chew" implies he actually did try to absorb it. He just couldn't actually functionally absorb it because he was retarded.

Which is where the "Omega was poisoned" theory comes into play that I've no doubts you've seen many times. Whether that was the case or not it had some merit if you assume Omega actually did try to absorb the kablooey. He basically tried to eat power he has no way of actually digesting. He basically drank a bunch of bleach.

If that's the way you want to go with it of course.


Originally posted by Astner
Read the scan.

The armada did not blow up the planet. What the armada did was "sparking a massive chain reaction within its (the planet's) depths," which then lead to the destruction of the planet.

But even if the armada blew up the planet, it's still the destruction of a planet! You don't get to make claims like 'it was probably a condensed galaxy-buster,' unless you have a basis for that claim. Irrelevant distinction.

All I'm saying is the Armada's laser weapons presumably have to go somewhere. If that energy contributes to the coming explosion then you have another factor. Simple really.



I'm not saying it was a condensed galaxy buster though. I'm saying it was a once in a lifetime plot device explosion that was enough to kill him. It was so focused in that area that he just couldn't deal with it.

I'm saying that a planet that is essentially a giant bomb is something different than a normal planet. I'm saying that there's no placement for this. It's a one off explosion that will never be replicated or have a proper placement of where it ranks.
http://i1134.photobucket.com/albums/m610/sonnendawg/1d61d87d-fb26-40e9-b2be-47ce1c833114.jpg

Which is if you just look at it as a simple blast, and assume Omega didn't try to absorb it. Like I said, factors.



Originally posted by Astner
I'm not making the argument that Thanos shouldn't be able to survive a planetary explosion, especially battle-ready with his shields up.

And I'll admit that the scenes of Omega and Galactus dying and barely surviving, respectively, are low end-portrayals and should not be used as arguments against Galactus' durability in versus forums.

The argument I'm making is that it makes no sense to interpret the scene from the Infinity Abyss in the way that Thanos survived a black hole based on the execution of the scene as well as the context of the story. But Thanos surviving a planetary explosion plays a large part in the discussion of the feat. If we follow only what you say, then you're using a feat Thanos is more than capable of surviving rather effortlessly to try and downplay Thanos' interaction with the black hole. That simply does not work. You can't be under the assumption that Thanos can survive easily the thing you're using from a way more durable being than Thanos, and actually use that downplay a completely different feat.
It loses a lot of it's momentum. And it loses more when you say it's a low feat.

But if they're low end feats that shouldn't be usable, then why are they being used at all to try and lower Thanos? Among other things, Thanos didn't acquire low feats in that series. Why is an admitted low end portrayal to another character relevant to him? Galactus and Omega could have been KO'ed by beer bottles in that series and it still isn't directly applicable to what Thanos can accomplish.


And if it does directly interfere with your enjoyment of it, then all it would simply be is a low end high end sort of scenario. Thanos is presented high end, Omega is presented low end. It doesn't get to directly take away from a feat even in the worst case scenario.
But we will get to your "as well as" a little later. I believe I've already previously answered that, and really there's nothing to answer. As much as you try, the evidence is plainly presented in full in that scene. Black hole opens, black hole closes, Thanos is damaged. Open and shut case really. But again, we will get to it.

Originally posted by Astner
In fact. There is another scene, in Infinity Abyss, where Thanos only survives one of Omega's assaults that went through all three of his shields and his armor despite the fact that the size of the crater is about the size of a house.

I wouldn't use this as an argument against Thanos' durability either, but at least it provides story context. But this is like I said earlier, a pure example of collateral damage not matching up to the actual power displayed. Are we under the understanding that a larger area presents more power being displayed or something?

Should we assumed that if a being as durable as something slightly larger than that was hit with an attack he wouldn't be instantly vaporized?

If say a being with the durability of a mansion was hit by that blast, would he survive? But you could argue that materials and that... if a being as durable as a mansion made of concrete (surely that's more durable than the ground surrounding no?) was hit by that blast would he survive?
No? Then why is the area of effect relevant here?

The blast almost killed Thanos. That's more than a house lot level of power being displayed.