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

Well, who?

no one, even toaa was revealed to be not omnipotent recently

maybe the thanos that absorbed toaa could put up a fight

Originally posted by MrMind
no one, even toaa was revealed to be not omnipotent recently
Are you implying that the Great Darkness is omnipotent? Because that doesn't make any sense considering he and the Ultimate Light are locked in a sempiternal battle.

Originally posted by Astner
Are you implying that the Great Darkness is omnipotent? Because that doesn't make any sense considering he and the Ultimate Light are locked in a sempiternal battle.

there are multiple factors to consider

geb stalemated the presence who is the creator of a much bigger omniverse than marvel for starter

thanos even with toaa abosrbed was not omniscience that he cannot find out the location of eros

Originally posted by MrMind
of a much bigger omniverse than marvel for starter
That's certainly up for debate.

https://i.imgur.com/l1CTfkdm.png

"Earth's universe rests within a Multiverse situated within a potentially infinite Omniverse."

- The DC Book: A Vast and Vibrant Multiverse Simply Explained, p. 20.

what does "potentially infinite" even mean?

anyway is marvels current multiverse back up to "infinite universes" status?

Originally posted by DeadpoolXXX
what does "potentially infinite" even mean?
https://i.imgur.com/vUxoAgc.png

lol?

what i mean is, dc's omniverse was flatout said to contain infinite multiverses.

potentially infinite is just a guidebook stuff.

Originally posted by DeadpoolXXX
what i mean is, dc's omniverse was flatout said to contain infinite multiverses.
Why would that matter when the word infinity is colloquially used to refer to things that are finite?

Absolute infinite >potential infinite

it has been stated several times that the marvel omniverse contains infinite multiverses, the last time I remember is this: https://imgur.com/obR6eLZ, so if Toaa is not omnipotent it should still be a legitimate omniversal power, unless Toaa is only supreme of a single multiverse of the infinite multiverses that exist in the omniverse (?)

Originally posted by alekj019
https://imgur.com/obR6eLZ,
You need to remove the comma and add a .jpg at the end of your link, its hyperlink doens't work.

But it's better just to post a thumbnail.

https://i.imgur.com/obR6eLZm.jpeg

Originally posted by alekj019
infinite multiverses

dc has infinite multiverses stated on panel as well

the difference is dc has higher realms each transcend the previous one by orders of magnitudes

Originally posted by alekj019
it has been stated several times that the marvel omniverse contains infinite multiverses i was asking about current marvel.

and infinite multiverses is not much different from infinite universes

the difference is scale, marvel has no higher realms to speak of

in dc, nil view the dc infinite multiverse as size of a gem

if you don't put size in perspective, it's just number

Originally posted by MrMind
in dc, nil view the dc infinite multiverse as size of a gem
How exactly is 52 universes and a handful of auxiliary realms infinte?

Originally posted by Astner
How exactly is 52 universes and a handful of auxiliary realms infinte?

Because we go by the most recent interpretation

You saw the DC multiverse map

You know 52 universes are only the local multiverse

Or do you want me to pull out the scan and school u again

Originally posted by Astner
How exactly is 52 universes and a handful of auxiliary realms infinte?
52 universes are a thing of the past since Infinite Frontier.

The term 'frontier' is poetic licence.

Originally posted by DeadpoolXXX
i was asking about current marvel.

the scan is from 2016 which is after secret wars where the reboot was made and the multiverse went from being the seventh cosmos to the eighth, although the stories belong to comics that were published much earlier, but there are still infinite multiverses within the greater whole that is the omniverse, I'm sure in ultimates 2, we saw higher realms outside the multiverse and recently in defenders beyond #2 we discovered that the beyond realm is outside the multiverse and that even the WHR is a higher dimension.

Originally posted by abhilegend
52 universes are a thing of the past since Infinite Frontier.
No, when the Source Wall was destroyed it exposed the Multiverse to the rest of the Omniverse which is said to be infinite.

But the Multiverse itself exist just as it did before with number designations and everything.

https://i.imgur.com/GktqhEhm.jpg

- Infinite Frontier #2

Originally posted by Astner
No, when the Source Wall was destroyed it exposed the Multiverse to the rest of the Omniverse which is said to be infinite.

But the Multiverse itself exist just as it did before with number designations and everything.

https://i.imgur.com/GktqhEhm.jpg

- Infinite Frontier #2

Why do you keep up this shit even after you've been corrected multiple times?

https://i.postimg.cc/VrDCXmpy/image.jpg

Multiverse had new Earths growing after its resurrection.

"Multiverse expanding without limit"

Infinite Frontier 0.

https://i.postimg.cc/y38rT6N0/image.jpg

Its even stated directly for dummies too thick to understand that where there was only 52 universes, there are now countless without any boundaries. In the multiverse.

https://i.postimg.cc/DWCGX7R9/image.jpg

"This new multiverse is infinite"

https://i.postimg.cc/MvxGqhFV/image.jpg

It couldn't be clearer

Who is GEB?

Originally posted by lawest9
Who is GEB?

genital erection bitchboy

Originally posted by Astner
How exactly is 52 universes and a handful of auxiliary realms infinte?

local multiverse

https://i.ibb.co/5nPzmJH/Local-Multiverse.webp

Originally posted by MrMind
genital erection bitchboy


Gay Evil Beast.

Originally posted by Classic NES
Gay Evil Beast.
That's just zopzop

Originally posted by abhilegend
Why do you keep up this shit even after you've been corrected multiple times?

https://i.postimg.cc/VrDCXmpy/image.jpg

Multiverse had new Earths growing after its resurrection. Originally posted by abhilegend
"Multiverse expanding without limit"

Infinite Frontier 0.

https://i.postimg.cc/y38rT6N0/image.jpg

Its even stated directly for dummies too thick to understand that where there was only 52 universes, there are now countless without any boundaries. In the multiverse.

https://i.postimg.cc/DWCGX7R9/image.jpg

"This new multiverse is infinite"

https://i.postimg.cc/MvxGqhFV/image.jpg

It couldn't be clearer
Are you being obtuse on purpose? The context of your scans specifically refers to the omniverse. Them calling the omniverse it "the multiverse" because there's no Source Wall separating the two anymore doesn't change anything. The Multiverse Map is still a thing, if it wasn't they wouldn't be using it anymore.

Originally posted by MrMind
local multiverse

https://i.ibb.co/5nPzmJH/Local-Multiverse.webp
What's your point? No one is denying that there are multiple multiverses in the omniverse, and that's all a "local multiverse," implies. Just like "the local clinic" implies that there are more (non-local) clinics.

If I had a fenced off area in a forest, and that fence one day was destroyed.... surely it's all one forest now?

Originally posted by DarkSaint85
If I had a fenced off area in a forest, and that fence one day was destroyed.... surely it's all one forest now?
You can certainly refer to the omniverse as a multiverse if you want (I mean the comics do it). It's just semantics so it doesn't really change anything.

But when I say "multiverse" I'm refering to that which was inside the Source Wall, and when I say "omniverse" I'm referring to the multiverse as well as that which exist outside it.

In this sense the multiverse is finite, and the omniverse is (arguably) infinite.

However what MrMind is doing is that he's trying to separate the multiverse and the omniverse, apply the characteristics of the omniverse to the multiverse, to then argue that he multiverse is still embedded in the omniverse.

Originally posted by Astner
Are you being obtuse on purpose? The context of your scans specifically refers to the omniverse. Them calling the omniverse it "the multiverse" because there's no Source Wall separating the two anymore doesn't change anything. The Multiverse Map is still a thing, if it wasn't they wouldn't be using it anymore.


They're literally telling about omniverse as having infinite multiverseS in the very same scan, are you unable to read or something?

https://i.postimg.cc/4yTQk313/image.jpg

Multiverse is expanding and new multiverses are being born to create an infinite Web of multiverses. I mean come the **** on.

infinite multiverses, im gonna have a field day with this

https://i.ibb.co/KXPw8SZ/Perpetua-dc.webp

Originally posted by Astner
You can certainly refer to the omniverse as a multiverse if you want (I mean the comics do it). It's just semantics so it doesn't really change anything.

But when I say "multiverse" I'm refering to that which was inside the Source Wall, and when I say "omniverse" I'm referring to the multiverse as well as that which exist outside it.

In this sense the multiverse is finite, and the omniverse is (arguably) infinite.

However what MrMind is doing is that he's trying to separate the multiverse and the omniverse, apply the characteristics of the omniverse to the multiverse, to then argue that he multiverse is still embedded in the omniverse.

You're right, it's semantics.

Because how this entire debate started, was that Mind said the Presence created a larger Omniverse than Marvel's, which somehow got twisted into now.... Multiverse?

But since we all agree that DC is an Omniverse, we have multiple scans saying that it's infinite, so.....what's the issue?

Edit: the only thing is that Mind was wrong (maybe?) In saying theNil Monitors saw the Multiverse as infinite.

new genesis alone view mortal universes as size of bubbles

nil is far far above new genesis in scale who in term is far above the third dimensional main multiverse

where does it's only 52 universes come from? 52 universes are the known universes that's been explored, kinda like marvel used to have infinite universes but even then we only get introduced like 50-60 of them

does that make sense?

Originally posted by Astner
No one is denying that there are multiple multiverses in the omniverse,Originally posted by abhilegend
They're literally telling about omniverse as having infinite multiverseSOriginally posted by MrMind
infinite multiverses, im gonna have a field day with this
This is what I get for getting into an argument with Indian Tech Support and the local cackhead.

Originally posted by DarkSaint85
You're right, it's semantics.

Because how this entire debate started, was that Mind said the Presence created a larger Omniverse than Marvel's, which somehow got twisted into now.... Multiverse?

But since we all agree that DC is an Omniverse, we have multiple scans saying that it's infinite, so.....what's the issue?
The issue is that the guidebook makes it clear that the omniverse is (only) possibly infinite, implying that it's not actually known and that it could be finite.

Keep in mind that the word infinity can be used both figuratively and literally. In other words you can use the word infinity to describe something finite, e.g.

https://i.imgur.com/Zch7cko.png

So the word "infinity" (regardless of how many times it's repeated) does not enforce a literal reading of it. For a literal reading of it proper context eliminating a figurative reading of it required.

I did keep it in mind. I also kept in mind how quick you are to infer the Celestials are infinite in power, based on .....well, a link that was a lot more tenuous than this.

I am pointing your double standards out, if it was not clear.

Originally posted by Astner
This is what I get for getting into an argument with Indian Tech Support and the local cackhead.

Oh now it's flat out racism when you get schooled?

So despite the fact that multiverse is stated to be infinite multiple times, it's not because a guidebook said so but celestials and Beyonders are infinite, eh retard?

Originally posted by DarkSaint85
I did keep it in mind. I also kept in mind how quick you are to infer the Celestials are infinite in power, based on .....well, a link that was a lot more tenuous than this.

I am pointing your double standards out, if it was not clear.
Its hilarious.

I wonder how many people actually read American Gothic. Then again, Dark Crisis seems poised to retcon things.

Originally posted by DarkSaint85
I did keep it in mind. I also kept in mind how quick you are to infer the Celestials are infinite in power, based on .....well, a link that was a lot more tenuous than this.
If memory serves I conceded that point and I'm currently withholding my judgement until it's further clarified.

Either way, the Celestials aren't really releavant to this thread.

Originally posted by abhilegend
Oh now it's flat out racism when you get schooled?
I can't even imagine how miserable you'd have to be to consider your nationality and profession to be a racial slur.

Originally posted by abhilegend
So despite the fact that multiverse is stated to be infinite multiple times,
Yes. This is completely irrelevant.

I can say that there are infinitely many stars in the galaxy a hundred times and be 100% grammatically correct, despite there the number of stars in the galaxy being finite.

What you need to prove that it's literally infinite is proper context. That's just how the English language works.

Originally posted by abhilegend
it's not because a guidebook said so
I'm not saying that it isn't, I'm simply making a point of that there's a reason to question it.

Originally posted by abhilegend
but celestials and Beyonders are infinite, eh retard?Originally posted by abhilegend
Its hilarious.
It's*.

Originally posted by Astner
despite there the number of stars in the galaxy being finite.

Originally posted by Astner


I can't even imagine how miserable you'd have to be to consider your nationality and profession to be a racial slur.

Yes, all indians are tech support and all Swedish get raped by Muslims.

You're not just a clown, you're the entire circus.




Cause, you said so?




I'm not making these claims you idiot, the comics, you know the main source does.



No, I don't. The comic repeatedly says so, so it is.

Well yes, actually no isn't an argument.




Even that's incorrect.

Originally posted by abhilegend
Cause, you said so?
No, I explained why.

Originally posted by abhilegend
I'm not making these claims you idiot, the comics, you know the main source does.
You're missing the point, reread and try again.

Originally posted by abhilegend
No, I don't. The comic repeatedly says so, so it is.
It doesn't matter.

Originally posted by abhilegend
Well yes, actually no isn't an argument.
Are you drunk?

Originally posted by abhilegend


Even that's incorrect.
No.

"It's" is a contraction of "it is," e.g. It's raining today.

"Its" is the possessive form it "it," e.g. Its surface is smooth.

What you attempted to say was "it (referring to what's I'm saying) is hilarious," hence "it's hilarious" is correct.

What are we arguing about? Asking for a Mod.

Originally posted by Diesldude
What are we arguing about? Asking for a Mod.
Whether or not there exist sufficient evidence to suggest that there are (literally) infinte multiverses in the DC Omniverse. This is put into question because the handbook explicitly points out that the omniverse contains a "potentially infinite" number of universes.

So far not a single piece has ruled out a figurative interpretation. But since abhi struggles with basic English it's taking him some time to catch on.

Originally posted by Astner
If memory serves I conceded that point and I'm currently withholding my judgement until it's further clarified.

Either way, the Celestials aren't really releavant to this thread.

Your willingness to question and accept 'proofs' when it agrees/disagrees with you, is what I am debating. Which makes it relevant.

Also, the word you are looking for is 'relevant'. 'Releavant', AFAIK, does not exist as a word.

Far be it from me to correct the English of others, but as you are doing so for abhi, it is only fair we hold you to a high and lofty standard, right?

I always thought the guidebooks only can be used as secondary source? I remembered it because Galan talked about it when I posted its link on this forum

Originally posted by Galan007
Sort of just reaffirms why the comics themselves should always take absolute precedence in matters of canonicity, and why handbooks/guidebooks should only be used as supplementary evidence when they align with on-panel happenings.

Also in the same book, it mentioned Perpetua has infinite power........

https://ibb.co/BsC10Pn

Originally posted by Astner
No, I explained why.

English language you mean?




Scintillation arguments.

Doom

Whoa, rapeset is here!!!!

Originally posted by Astner
Whether or not there exist sufficient evidence to suggest that there are (literally) infinte multiverses in the DC Omniverse. This is put into question because the handbook explicitly points out that the omniverse contains a "potentially infinite" number of universes.

So far not a single piece has ruled out a figurative interpretation. But since abhi struggles with basic English it's taking him some time to catch on. I don't quite understand what you're asking for here?

If you are refusing to accept on-panel sources that refer to the omniverse as infinite, then what exactly do you need to see? An artist drawing an infinite amount of universes/multiverses on-panel, in an one-shot issue?

I understand your "infinity could just be an exaggeration" point, but unless we are given a legitimate, on-panel reason to assume the omniverse is sub-infinite or w/e, then I don't see why the scans should be taken at anything less than face value..? Not because of a single blurb from a guidebook, surely?

I'd also argue that there is a difference between characters who are stated to be infinite, and cosmology that is stated to be infinite. With the former, it's easy enough to deduce if they *actually* wield infinite power, based on their showings(ie. does anyone surpass them? Have they shown limits? etc.)... But with the latter, we kind of just have to go by what the comics say, for obvious reasons(ie. an artist cannot possibly draw an infinite amount of anythings in a comic book, so they have to convey scope/scale through dialogue alone.)

the fact that DC comics (or Marvel) sometimes uses infinite in the figurative sense (or even often does) is not evidence that every use of the word is figurative. There's no contradiction in figuratively calling Superman infinite but literally describing the omniverse as such.

Originally posted by Astner
This is what I get for getting into an argument with Indian Tech Support and the local cackhead.



Originally posted by Astner

I can't even imagine how miserable you'd have to be to consider your nationality and profession to be a racial slur.

also, while we're talking about the basics of interpreting everything in context

no, it's not automatically racist to simply refer to someone's nationality and profession

yes, it's plainly racist to say "This is what I get for arguing with" someone of that nationality

denying the racism by playing dumb does nothing to hide the racism, but successfully makes you look dumb

Originally posted by abhilegend
So despite the fact that multiverse is stated to be infinite multiple times, it's not because a guidebook said so but celestials and Beyonders are infinite, eh retard?

What exactly has the great evil beast done on panel to suggest that no entity in Marvel could smash his ass? Just curious.

^ In American Gothic, it threatened to destroy Heaven during the instability of the spiritual realms in the wake of Crisis on Infintie Earths. It's best on-panel feat I guess is chewing up Spectre and spitting him out. Literally. Then after Swamp Thing kinda gave it a new perspective on the nature of good and evil, it shook the Presence's hand.

I feel that a lot of subsequent characters who supposedly embody the darkness/oblivion/nothingness before the light/creation completely aped the concept from Moore.

Originally posted by Galan007
I don't quite understand what you're asking for here?

If you are refusing to accept on-panel sources that refer to the omniverse as infinite, then what exactly do you need to see? An artist drawing an infinite amount of universes/multiverses on-panel, in an one-shot issue?
No. What's needed is proper context that goes against a figurative reading of it.

What's being done is effectively what's was done with the One-Above-All when he was interpreted to be omnipotent. It was assumed based off the use of the word rather than a proper explanation outlining the characteristics of omnipotence. In hindsight it was the wrong way to go about things and because of it it was cemented to the point where people even now will deny the legitimacy of the counter-evidence.

Originally posted by Galan007
I understand your "infinity could just be an exaggeration" point, but unless we are given a legitimate, on-panel reason to assume the omniverse is sub-infinite or w/e, then I don't see why the scans should be taken at anything less than face value..? Not because of a single blurb from a guidebook, surely?
No. There are more elements that factor into this, e.g. Perpetua's fight with Batman Who Laughs made it clear that both of them were finite, and they were quite high up the cosmic ladder.

More on point, the contexts in which the word "infinite" is presented allows for either a figurative or a literal reading. By deciding on a literal interpretation you're assuming more than necessary, and an interpretation that primarily hinges on assumptions is a bad interpretation.

Originally posted by Galan007
I'd also argue that there is a difference between characters who are stated to be infinite, and cosmology that is stated to be infinite. With the former, it's easy enough to deduce if they *actually* wield infinite power, based on their showings(ie. does anyone surpass them? Have they shown limits? etc.)... But with the latter, we kind of just have to go by what the comics say, for obvious reasons(ie. an artist cannot possibly draw an infinite amount of anythings in a comic book, so they have to convey scope/scale through dialogue alone.)
I disagree. You can't prove either directly. Like you said, you can't visually illustrate something literally infinite. But the same thing goes for feats of infinite power. You need to attach narration to both.

In the case of the Beyonders there's an effort made to enforce a literal interpretation, e.g. because of their powers they're able to overthrow the creators if need be, a varied, unconventional vocabulary is used e.g. "non-finite," and the limitations of their powers are explained through limited proxy bodies, etc.

Is this a seamless case for the Beyonders being literally infinite? No. But the context clearly promotes a literal interpretation over a figurative one.

Originally posted by Smurph
also, while we're talking about the basics of interpreting everything in context

no, it's not automatically racist to simply refer to someone's nationality and profession

yes, it's plainly racist to say "This is what I get for arguing with" someone of that nationality

denying the racism by playing dumb does nothing to hide the racism, but successfully makes you look dumb
Go back to thumblr.

.....

The Beyonders are clearly shown to have limits, NOT due to their limited proxy bodies, but by their very nature as linear beings.

Which is an element that factors into this, and makes quite clear they are finite.

^ Has it been suggested that the GEB is non-linear?

Originally posted by DarkSaint85
.....

The Beyonders are clearly shown to have limits, NOT due to their limited proxy bodies, but by their very nature as linear beings.

Which is an element that factors into this, and makes quite clear they are finite.
Their linearity was established in Time Runs Out and it simply means that they're unable to time-travel.

While this is a limitation in a technical sense (and an odd caveat if nothing else) it doesn't mean that the powers they're able to exert has to be finite. Infinite power does not imply omnipotence after all.

Don't think so; it's one of those 'it has always existed!' type deals. No beginning and no end blah blah blah.

My point with Astner is that he's more accepting for one side but more distrustful of the other, even though the proofs and evidences are pretty similar.

Originally posted by DarkSaint85
My point with Astner is that he's more accepting for one side but more distrustful of the other, even though the proofs and evidences are pretty similar.
I disagree. I'm equally skeptic of both, but Defenders Beyond #2 makes a far better case for a literal interpretation of infinity than anything in either Dark Nights, or Dark Crisis (on Infinite Earths) as well as their lead-ups wherein the structure of the omniverse is outlined.

Is it perfect? No. But it doesn't have to be. All it has to do is dispute a figurative reading of the term infinity with the context provided.

How is it a far better case?

They use the term 'they were created without limits' once.

Then a scant few pages later, show clearly defined limits. Fears and inabilities to do things.

Originally posted by DarkSaint85
Don't think so; it's one of those 'it has always existed!' type deals. No beginning and no end blah blah blah.

My point with Astner is that he's more accepting for one side but more distrustful of the other, even though the proofs and evidences are pretty similar. So was Chaos King, Knull, Pralaya, Oblivion, zopzop's Set...

I haven't tracked the conversation closely enough. So I guess my only comment is that going around in circles about which infinity is greater seems like an exercise in semantics. Maybe just bear down on the actual characters? Beyonders non-linearity doesn't prevent them from knowing what will happen.

Originally posted by DarkSaint85
How is it a far better case?

They use the term 'they were created without limits' once.
There's also the context the multiverse being infinite, them using varying and unconventional vocabulary to describe their infinite condition, and most importantly they taking on finite forms to interact with the Defenders: and the damaging of these forms have no significant impact on their beings.

So the story, as told, doesn't make sense if you interpret infinity figuratively here.

Originally posted by DarkSaint85
Then a scant few pages later, show clearly defined limits. Fears and inabilities to do things.
We're not talking about arbitrary attributes and the limitations thereof, we're specifically talking about their power.

@ODG: Pretty much. I agree with your post; just focus on the characters themselves.

I don't even know how this non linearity works. Would Flash going back in time defeat them? Is Zoom untouchable to them? Rip Hunter?

Originally posted by Astner
There's also the context the multiverse being infinite, them using varying and unconventional vocabulary to describe their infinite condition, and most importantly they taking on finite forms to interact with the Defenders, and the damaging of these forms have no significant impact on their beings.

So the story, as told, doesn't make sense if you interpret infinity figuratively here.
Then they fear a threat they view as unstoppable (which, come on now, do we really believe the heroes won't stop??) And can't even risk drawing the attention of a non-linear being.

All in the same issue.

Galactus takes on limited forms too. He's not infinite. Unconventional language is just your term for 'flowery language '.

Originally posted by DarkSaint85
I don't even know how this non linearity works.
Linearity was just a stupid term they used in Time Runs Out to explain that the Beyonders couldn't time travel. Time is linear, they're linear, therefore they can't go back in time and prevent Dr. Doom from carrying out his plan.

In mathematics linearity simply means that f(x+y) = f(x) + f(y) and f(c⋅x) = c⋅f(x) are satisfied.

Originally posted by DarkSaint85
Would Flash going back in time defeat them? Is Zoom untouchable to them? Rip Hunter?
I don't recall if the destruction of the individual universes also destroyed their timelines or if it was ever clarified. So maybe?

Originally posted by DarkSaint85
Then they fear a threat they view as unstoppable (which, come on now, do we really believe the heroes won't stop??) And can't even risk drawing the attention of a non-linear being.
They're the custodians of the multiverse, it's not about non-linear beings posing a threat to them.

Originally posted by DarkSaint85
Galactus takes on limited forms too. He's not infinite. Unconventional language is just your term for 'flowery language '.
That's because there are clear contradictions in the premise of Galactus having infinite power.

Originally posted by Astner
Linearity was just a stupid term they used in Time Runs Out to explain that the Beyonders couldn't time travel. Time is linear, they're linear, therefore they can't go back in time and prevent Dr. Doom from carrying out his plan.

In mathematics linearity simply means that f(x+y) = f(x) + f(y) and f(c⋅x) = c⋅f(x) are satisfied.


I don't recall if the destruction of the individual universes also destroyed their timelines or if it was ever clarified. So maybe?


They're the custodians of the multiverse, it's not about non-linear beings posing a threat to them.


That's because there are clear contradictions in the premise of Galactus having infinite power.

Did the comic not have the Beyonders agreeing there were unstoppable threats?

Unstoppable sounds suspiciously like they're unable to do something. Like they have limits.

Originally posted by DarkSaint85
Did the comic not have the Beyonders agreeing there were unstoppable threats?
I don't know. I don't remember it or the supposed context, and I'm not going to check it up during work.

jeez you been all kinds of uppity lately

Originally posted by Astner
Go back to thumblr. lol, k

please keep explaining about how to interpret words based on their context

Originally posted by DarkSaint85
@ODG: Pretty much. I agree with your post; just focus on the characters themselves.

I don't even know how this non linearity works. Would Flash going back in time defeat them? Is Zoom untouchable to them? Rip Hunter? Well... time travel shenanigans orchestrated by Doom and Molecule Man still resulted in the Seventh Cosmos iteration of the Marvel Multiverse being destroyed anyway. So it's not like time travel = auto-win. Maybe at best a pyrrhic victory if we go by on-panel feats?

Either way, is time travel even a consideration if it's GEB fighting them?

Originally posted by Smurph
lol, k

please keep explaining about how to interpret words based on their context
Racsim is the rejection of equal rights and equal opportunities for all races. Insults and jokes pertaining to someone's ethnicity are neither racist nor inherently worse than any other insults or jokes.

Grow some thicker skin and move on with your life.

ok dad

Originally posted by ODG
Well... time travel shenanigans orchestrated by Doom and Molecule Man still resulted in the Seventh Cosmos iteration of the Marvel Multiverse being destroyed anyway. So it's not like time travel = auto-win. Maybe at best a pyrrhic victory if we go by on-panel feats?

Either way, is time travel even a consideration if it's GEB fighting them?

It isn't, but it's nice to have some discussion and to see if others had insight into what 'non linear beings ' mean.

Originally posted by Astner
Racsim is the rejection of equal rights and equal opportunities for all races. Insults and jokes pertaining to someone's ethnicity are neither racist nor inherently worse than any other insults or jokes. "it wasn't a racist insult. I just used his race as an insult."

interesting take

Originally posted by Astner
Grow some thicker skin and move on with your life. I'm not bothered about your joke, lol. I don't need to be offended to just see it for what it is. I can read the words on the page, after all.

You do seem upset though.

Originally posted by Smurph
"it wasn't a racist insult. I just used his race as an insult."

interesting take
Sophistry aside, there are no "racist insults" only racist sentiments expressed through insults.

Originally posted by Astner
Sophistry aside, there are no "racist insults" only racist sentiments expressed through insults.

Fair enough, at least you're owning it.

Originally posted by Astner
Sophistry aside, there are no "racist insults" only racist sentiments expressed through insults.

Originally posted by Astner

I can't even imagine how miserable you'd have to be to consider your nationality and profession to be a racial slur.


do you see the contradiction?

He's merely expressing his racist sentiments through his insults, Smurph. Harmless japes.

At least we can all agree on the importance of context clues. Whether we're talking about infinity, or Indian Tech Support.

Originally posted by DarkSaint85
It isn't, but it's nice to have some discussion and to see if others had insight into what 'non linear beings ' mean. In the spirit of Time Runs Out and Al Ewing's current Defenders story, those who do not exist or experience time linearly (like Doctor Manhattan???) are non linear beings. And even linear beings who can break the rules of linearity with time travel can effectuate non linear actions.

But something is nagging my mind because I was pretty sure Beyonder did do time-related shenanigans before Hickman's Secret Wars. I'm too drunk and lazy to look it up now though. Maybe someone else recalls.

Originally posted by DarkSaint85
He's merely expressing his racist sentiments through his insults, Smurph. Harmless japes.

I see I've missed quite a party.

Hoping I'm not too late to post this:

uZLAQFSlYOA

The best song ever .

Originally posted by ODG
But something is nagging my mind because I was pretty sure Beyonder did do time-related shenanigans before Hickman's Secret Wars

He extracted a Doom from the future to put him in secret wars because the Doom of the present was dead, he could also see the past and snatch luke cage and Iron Fist from that time and take them to the present and then return them back, he teleported Rachel Phoenix to the future, also in a Spiderman mini Doom with his powers claimed to be present in the past and future, and all of time and space, in the Deadpool-team up story, he sent Deadpool to the dawn of time, I'm not sure if these last two stories are canon anyway.

Originally posted by StiltmanFTW
I see I've missed quite a party.

Hoping I'm not too late to post this:

uZLAQFSlYOA

The best song ever .

is that dude carver?

Originally posted by Smurph
do you see the contradiction?
There's no contradiction. You're grasping at straws trying to attatch meanings to terms not inherent to them due to your limited grasp of the topic.

A racial slur, while it can be used to express racist sentiments, is not inherently racist. Racism, by definition, is the belief that there should be a discrimation of rights or opportunity based on race, nothing more. As long as you disagree with that you are not racist, regardless of how you express yourself and regardless of how you're percieved.

Originally posted by Smurph
lol, k

please keep explaining about how to interpret words based on their context

Originally posted by DarkSaint85
He's merely expressing his racist sentiments through his insults, Smurph. Harmless japes. conveniently, as it turns out, words are entirely irrelevant.

"judge a man not by the racism in his post but by the racism in his brain"

I've discovered that Smurph is the Marwa to my Nandor.

Originally posted by Smurph
conveniently, as it turns out, words are entirely irrelevant.
It was never about the convenience of labeling and disregardig people's thoughts or ideas for using ethnically-tinged insults, it was about addressing discrimination of ethnic minorities.

This is even true in the U.S. where this is a sensitive topic. Black people are not regarded as racist for using the "n-word," despite it often being regarded as the most charged racial slur, so clearly the word itself isn't inherently racist.

^ I don't know why you keep going on about "inherent meaning"? You're attacking a strawman. I haven't once said that words hold inherent meaning. I've repeatedly said that we understand meaning based on context.

But I do finally see your point. When you insulted Abhi for being Indian, it was like a Black person using the N word.

Very clever, well argued.

Originally posted by Smurph
^ I don't know why you keep going on about "inherent meaning"? You're attacking a strawman. I haven't once said that words hold inherent meaning. I've repeatedly said that we understand meaning based on context.

But I do finally see your point. When you insulted Abhi for being Indian, it was like a Black person using the N word.

Very clever, well argued.

Little did we know, Astner is a third generation Indian immigrant. He's allowed to say those things to abhi bhai.

but the more important question is

who is sexier?

Superman if the plot needs him to.

Originally posted by Astner
It was never about the convenience of labeling and disregardig people's thoughts or ideas for using ethnically-tinged insults also this is pretty funny. I don't know what ethnically-tinged means but I'm guessing it's what Astner types in Uber Eats when he wants something spicy.

It's from his Tinder profile after he's watched Aladdin.

It's how he sorts his saved websites. Dedicated category of ethnically-tinged bookmarks.

When Astner comes back from the club, and wishes to impress his layest conquest on how worldly he is:

"Alexa, play the Ethnically Tinged playlist on Tidal."*


*You just know he has Tidal. It has a clear, crisp sound, and a new sheen of consummate professionalism that really gives the songs a big boost.

Originally posted by Smurph
I don't know why you keep going on about "inherent meaning"? You're attacking a strawman. I haven't once said that words hold inherent meaning. I've repeatedly said that we understand meaning based on context.
Because the inherent meaning of the words used is that your argument hinges on, whether you realize it or not.

But fair enough. Why do you believe that what I said implies that I'm in favor of an infringement on Indians rights and opportunities?

Originally posted by Smurph
But I do finally see your point. When you insulted Abhi for being Indian, it was like a Black person using the N word.
Why would you accuse me of making a straw man to in the very next paragraph make your own?

You're either trying to act smart with an IQ below room temperature or you're or you're being facetious. If you want me to keep replying to you then make it seem like it's worth my time.

Originally posted by Smurph
Very clever, well argued.
It is, it's just that you're not connecting the pieces right.

Originally posted by Astner

You're either trying to act smart with an IQ below room temperature or you're or you're being facetious. If you want me to keep replying to you then make it seem like it's worth my time.
lol my dude, you're replying because you want to make racist jokes without anybody saying that you made a racist joke. It's transparent, even for me and my single digit IQ.

They're not racist jokes.

They're merely his racist sentiments expressed in insulting joke form. Contextual clues matter.

Right, my mistake.

And the comparison to black people using the N word isn't a stupid argument. It's just stupidity, expressed in the form of an argument.

Originally posted by DarkSaint85
When Astner comes back from the club, and wishes to impress his layest conquest on how worldly he is:

"Alexa, play the Ethnically Tinged playlist on Tidal."*


*You just know he has Tidal. It has a clear, crisp sound, and a new sheen of consummate professionalism that really gives the songs a big boost.

why does every narcissistic joke always go back to american psycho

it's like you guys are not even creative anymore

Originally posted by MrMind
why does every narcissistic joke always go back to american psycho

it's like you guys are not even creative anymore

You're telling me there's shit even you don't like???

ba dum tsss

Dracula.

Dual adamantium katanas and his army of rats, vampires and werewolves? Strongest character in fiction.

Originally posted by abhilegend
Dual adamantium katanas and his army of rats, vampires and werewolves? Strongest character in fiction.

Also undead rats, undead werewolves and 'other creatures of the night'.

Also how's things Abhi?

All good. How are you my boy.

Originally posted by Astner
I don't know. I don't remember it or the supposed context, and I'm not going to check it up during work.

Nearly 1 week later, maybe you have checked it again?

Or is this another Animal Man #25 situation?

Nope.

https://c.tenor.com/B7G2g3g1pkcAAAAC/in-my-personal-unbiased-opinion-those-are-just-my-thoughts.gif

What is Marvel going to do? LMAO

^ What exactly do you think the GEB is going to do based on American Gothic?

Originally posted by Senor Cage
What is Marvel going to do? LMAO

they can send out these celestials lmfao

Originally posted by MrMind
they can send out these celestials lmfao

GEB would eat them! lol

^ TOAA is only omnipotent within a balanced and well-functioning system. If that balance is upset/unhinged, however, then TOAA's omnipotence can become less than absolute(as we saw when Thanos absorbed the regulators and such)... But that's neither here nor there.

As for GEB: it doesn't seem to have any sort of personal "vendetta" against the DC continuum, to the point where it is choosing to launch an all-out assault on the omniverse -- but rather, its power is being used/harnessed/manipulated by Pariah(and co.) as a means to an end. Probably best to wait until the story has wrapped up to make any concrete conclusions, but based on some of the feats GEB-amped characters have preformed(in addition to some of the statements made about GEB itself), the heavy implication is that it is one of the most powerful forces that has ever existed in DC.