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.
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.
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)
__________________
Last edited by Utrigita on May 14th, 2015 at 06:04 PM
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.
Sure, but he didn't have access to his ship.
It's not inconsistent. You had two very similar events take place in two related stories with similar outcomes.
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.
If it's alien to Thanos, then it's alien to us, and that's all I need for my argument to hold.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
__________________
Last edited by Utrigita on May 14th, 2015 at 07:26 PM
But your basic logic here doesn't account for the variables in planet sizes.
One could easily assume that the planets Galactus took were twice as big and thus farther poke holes in the comparison.
There is no indication that the planets vary in size from your average comic planet. At least, not that I want to look for.
Basically unless we get context heavy with this like I have and you haven't, we're still left with 1 planet vs 2. And we're still left with a half powered being taking on 2 vs a twice as powerful being dying to 1.
It still doesn't make sense following what you said.
This seems to be a large part of your problem here, ie if it wasn't stated it doesn't count. Hell you even said a black hole wasn't a black hole multiple times just because the gravitational force wasn't stated. Which is just something else. Not everything needs to be stated so black and white when a lot of it is common sense. Though we'll get to that later.
And why would Galactus need to be stated to have tanked it when the comic blatantly shows it? At no point in time was the pictures showing Galactus to be effected by the nova. Comics have both pictures and words you know. If we don't get the information we need from one aspect, there's likely to be an explanation in the other. What you're proposing is basically a complete pass to ignore the art in this case just because there were no words backing it up. Which is funny because a large part of your argument depends entirely on pictures.
We can't simply ignore the pictures just because there's no words to describe the scene.
As for the science aspect... it's pretty obvious what he's referring to there. He just used the energy of a planet to turn a neutron star ("pulsar") into a nova that destroyed a star system. That is where the science plays into it. You know, the actual tech he used to accomplish it? I'll let you wrap your head around that since you seem pretty grounded in reality here. A piece of tech used the energy of a planet to turn a neutron star nova. How does this bode for you when you're discussing comics?
That being said "Galactus has transported himself into the core of the exploding star!"
Which means Galactus himself was in there. That has nothing to do with science, and before you say it, Galactus is a known teleporter. As for your notion that he was using shields, he was shown to be mildly effected by the backlash of the dimensional portal where an Infinity Gem was stored. IE, either he wasn't using shields, or his shields broke and he was exposed to the Nova. Either way, doesn't make a difference.
Nevermind the fact that you're assuming shields there when that was never stated. Yet you ask me later where it was shown that Thanos took the destructive power of Galactus' galaxy cleaning power, when Thanos was point blank. You can't simply pick and choose when to assume and when to accuse the opposition of it.
Also, the part where Galactus just tanked a neutron star going nova at the time that destroyed a solar system. Maybe, just maybe things in comics have things more powerful than what we know of the real world? No?
And you know the funny part of this whole thing is? That Galactus' worldship survived the destruction of a solar system when Thanos' bombs took it out. Which we will get to later.
Frightened doesn't mean much. Especially when Galactus tanked a nova in the same arc. Especially when Hunger tanked Galactus moments earlier. Only Thanos knew for sure what was going on and he attributed it solely to the tech he had going for him.
What we've seen from Thanos' tech from minor bombs had him destroy the Worldship that tanked a solar system buster. So... that.
If he's putting a sizable nuclear device that would indicate more powerful tech at display.
Because that was Pip explaining the effects just by looking at them. That is not Thanos describing them.
As you should be well aware, the Worldship was in the same solar system when a neutron star went nova on it and destroyed the solar system. Calling it hyperbole solely based on the artistic effects doesn't work when we have the actual facts at our fingertips.
The bombs took down his Worldship, simple.
But if we go by your logic, we shall explain the contradictions here.
You say it's hyperbole because of it simply bringing down the Worldship and not utterly destroying it.
Yet, one has to realize that the Worldship is way smaller than a planet, so it should have been utterly devastated by a half planet destroyer.
But then we know the Worldship can tank a solar system destroyer. But half a planet can take it out.
So if we follow your idea of the feat, we end up at some weird junction full of contradictions.
To correct this, all we have to do is realize Pip has no understanding of Thanos' tech. It wasn't hyperbole, it was an understatement.
However, if comics have taught us anything, it's that collateral damage isn't a good assessment of power. A universal destroyer can apply a hefty degree of force and still only destroy a planet. You even alluded to this when you tried to play my words off as a joke by saying maybe the planet was a condensed galaxy buster. Which yeah, that happens in comics. We actually saw that happen to Anti Monitor when he was trapped in with a galaxy buster and it didn't utterly vaporize everything inside the bubble.
Things have different degrees of power no matter the scope. Scope isn't represented of power, and power isn't represented of scope. Those things are not interchangeable.
So yeah, maybe the scope of the bombs could only take out half a planet, but that doesn't mean the force contained within could only damage something that durable.
When you begin to understand this, then you can gain a greater understanding of how comics work.
For example while we're discussing Starlin, he had a battle between Thanos with the IG and almost all the abstracts constricted to solar system level. Does that mean that Odin could have just waltzed in there and started taking the power being displayed? Not a chance.
In the same story he had Thanos kill half the population of the universe with a snap. In another story he had Magus capable merging two universes together easily with an incomplete IG. Hell, in Death of the New Gods he had the Source fighting Darkseid with the Ale and it only destroyed 10 miles of land. Specifically 10 miles of land. Two universal entities are 10 miles of power worth? Hell, Luke Cage could tank that if we go by scope.
Which is why averages not just between the same writer, but between all showings is important. We know these sorts of levels are beneath these sorts of people. Yet it doesn't restrict the power being displayed.
If say for example Odin lifts his finger and destroys a galaxy but fails to kill Thor but in another showing Odin goes all out, kills Thor but only destroys a planet... what would you hold as a higher showing? What would you say is a bigger application of power if you follow how comics work? Because this type of shit happens all the time. You can't just be having quarter sections of universes blowing up everytime someone squabbles. Just because that doesn't happen, that doesn't mean someone is operating at lower levels.
There's a suspension of disbelief involved in almost 100 percent of these cases. The sooner you realize this, the sooner you'll be happy with the work you're reading. Some attacks are more "focused" than others.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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. (please log in to view the image)
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.
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.
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.
The issue with that is that Terrax survived inside one. I don't think a writer on the planet would have him above Thanos durability wise.
And that's with proper examination and context.
It's just that black holes are not impressive in comics. If they were you'd have something, someone to show for it. Even Quasar was able to escape a universal swallowing one. There are two special ones in comics, and Thanos is part of one. All the other ones are unimpressive.
Even extending this to DC has Superman withstanding a double black hole (which was basically a wormhole).
When Thanos is the most durable being a black hole has damaged, and it was a special black hole, other lesser beings surviving lesser black holes doesn't mean it isn't relevant because of different writers.
It's just a special case and he survived.
But I'm not just talking about consistent within stories. That's your imposition you placed on me. I'm saying Thanos can survive black holes. That's it.
I've merely following your limitations placed on what I can and cannot use to say Thanos should be able to survive a black hole. Ergo the Adam Warlock example. If I really felt like it, I would have just ignored playing in this game completely, but I think Starlin has written enough to go against other feats presented.
But it's still a black hole. That is what it was called, that is what it was. It does not have to have something attached to it for it to be more black hole than a black hole. Nothing was taken away from it in that instance, it just wasn't stated.
A sun doesn't have to be stated to be hot in comics. A black hole doesn't have to be stated to be it's primary function to be a black hole.
Not to mention Adam Warlock said it was untraversable anyway. No one has come back alive. Star Thief confirmed this. Which would indicate it did its basic function.
As for the hyperspace statement. He was saying that because it basically served the same function. Shortcuts through space. That doesn't mean all hyperspace is entering black holes. It just has this application as a side effect. Hyperspace is normally just a forced jump through space. I could post many examples of this. You're looking at the wrong thing here.
There is a distinct lack of black holes on both sides here. The space between the two black holes was called hyperspace but that doesn't necessarily mean it's accurate to what was later defined as hyperspace. It was a wormhole in Adam's case, but he still actually entered and exited black holes.
Adam entered a pre-existing black hole and exited a pre-existing black hole that no one else has ever lived to tell about before then. Hyperspace is just opening up a shortcut through space.
There are more in depth things to use, but this should suffice.
So yeah. There was an understanding there. I'd look for more, but I don't... need to?
Which would mean Thanos is only as durable as tiny pieces of metal from his ship. Which would mean that little pieces of metal have a greater pull on them than anything within two light years.
Or however Thanos resisted the pull extended to the debris. It was not the debris that resisted something that could pull in everything within two light years to say the least. That sentence defeats itself.
Hell, in the Terrax scene, Terrax was protecting a rock.
You're taking my statement too literally.
I'm not saying the black hole takes his ship at opposite ends and rips it up like a phonebook. I'm saying it tore his ship apart, which it did.
But again back to the Omega/Thanos example. I don't have to say anything for it to contradict. If we look at everything at face value it contradicts.
I have nothing to do with that. I'm just saying that Thanos took the black hole that was really strong. And it happened. And Omega getting destroyed by "less" doesn't erase what Thanos did.
4th. Thanos was about as close as he could have been to the explosion without actually being on the planet. Also, Thanos was surprised Skreet survived not Fallen One if you'll refer to the second scan. He didn't want Skreet to kill it, but he had no issue with the gas giant. Though Skreet was pretty much hiding behind Thanos, but still.
5th, the scan is supposed to prove that merely using collateral damage to figure out the power being displayed is useless. You tried to say Maker KO'ed Thanos with a city wide attack or whatever you said to try and indicate the power being displayed. In the same series he took a gas giant blowing up in his face to no effect. So yeah, it speaks for itself.
It blatantly says she was still the most powerful in mortal form. However, that's not what I'm trying to argue. I'm simply saying she's still powerful, as evidenced by her being able to reverse the crunch and destroy the universe.
No matter what the power level was, it still had unlimited power to some degree http://s118.photobucket.com/user/bi...20pg02.jpg.html
Like I said, I'm not arguing that she's the most powerful, just that she's powerful. I mean it still one shotted Thanos, albeit with a surprise attack.
Once Thanos was prepared for her, he stomped her. Regardless of the level of power she was operating at it, it speaks volumes that Thanos was able to completely overpower a being that had enough power to one shot him.
A powerful being was capable of surprising Thanos and one shotting him. No harm done. Thanos beating her speaks to his power, which I know isn't you actual point, but it seems relevant to point out his power as well.
Second, he just got rocked by the Cosmic Cube. It outright says they mindlock him there which is when he goes to sleep. Also that Cosmic Cube was far from broken. It still had unlimited power. It was used later in TI and in a distasteful display by Bendis.
And telepathy is not a knockout. You wouldn't say Juggernaut gets KO'ed by Hulk because Jean Grey knocks him out. A black hole doesn't use telepathy, etc. It's not the same thing.
As for the last one, it's a "death" yes. I'm not saying he hasn't died. It's just not a KO. The fact that he has actually died more than he's been KO'ed is odd though.
But your initial point is that he gets KO'ed a lot. He simply doesn't.
All of those instances involve those beings actually trying.
Couldn't give a shit about the collateral damage aspect of it.
Which means that unless Thanos' body was shielded from it, and considering he wasn't in the ship, then he was taking the full force of it. It's simple stuff. It doesn't have to be explained that a dead body a couple hundred feet from a blast is going to get hit from said blast.
Superman's cape is a simple example. You could use any clothing in comics, it makes no difference. Clothing doesn't indicate power. Clothing is a worse indicator than collateral damage.
It's just not going to happen. Clothing doesn't indicate anything. When clothing decides to get destroyed, it gets destroyed. When clothing doesn't get destroyed, nothing happens. It's meaningless.
Anything house destroying level would leave most people completely naked in actuality.
Wouldn't there need to be evidence that his dead unmoving body that was a couple hundred feet away from the blast was specifically shielded from the blast, as opposed to the opposite?
It was actually a reference to Annihilation. And it really doesn't matter if you read it or not, that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
Warlock grabs his body, places it in a Warlock cocoon of the Universal Truth's homeworld. He hatches and wipes the planet clean of life and then gets hit by a Cosmic Cube and telepathied out.
Is that based on evidence, or all you know about real black holes?
Because comic characters are apparently more durable.
Surfer/Red Shift/Terrax/Dazzler/Warlock have all entered black holes to no real effect. That should be enough to say Thanos can. Thanos survived an artificial black hole that instantly sucked in all things within two light years. That should be enough to say he can survive a normal black hole.
Omega and Galactus alone aren't enough to take that feat away even if we assume your interpretation of those feats are enough.
Among other things.
Anyway, here's something to wrap your head around. Surfer rams head first into a quasar which is actually a universal being.
KMC Community Forums
May 14th, 2015 12:09 PM
