Who can Galactus beat?

Originally posted by GalacticStorm
SS can drain energy from other sources

The Fury never defeated Jaspers through a greater output of power. He exploited his one weakness which was his power is dependant on reality and without reality to mould he is powerless.

Scathan is not greater than Eternity conclusively. Thats just a conclusion some forum members have jumped to because Scathan took out Protege. When did Eternity fight Protege and lose? After claiming to have the power of TOAA who is supposed to be the supreme being in Marvel when did Protege actually demonstrate this power?

Originally posted by kgkg
🤨

Creation have surpassed the creator in comic especially in Marvel

ie : Evolution ie Jasper , Franklin , Wanda etc

are all example that some of these characters have potential to exceed it's creator<and have done so>

Originally posted by kgkg
🤨

Creation have surpassed the creator in comic especially in Marvel

ie : Evolution ie Jasper , Franklin , Wanda etc

are all example that some of these characters have potential to exceed it's creator<and have done so>

That depends on how powerful you believe those characters are. The extent of Jaspers and Wandas power is debatable.

Jaspers 616's biggest feat was warping planet Earth as stated in his bio.

He had great potential however it wasnt realised. Since when do we rank a character based upon potential instead of feat and demonstrated power?

Wandas actual feats are debatable as well as there are more on panel statements saying she warped the planet Earth as opposed to the universe. And we all know that the Chaos Wave was triggered by her as opposed to being powered and controlled by her thereby cancelling its destruction as a feat.

Originally posted by GalacticStorm
That depends on how powerful you believe those characters are. The extent of Jaspers and Wandas power is debatable.

Jaspers 616's biggest feat was warping planet Earth as stated in his bio.

Wandas actual feats are debatable as well as there are more on panel statements saying she warped the planet Earth as opposed to the universe. And we all know that the Chaos Wave was triggered by her as opposed to being powered and controlled by her thereby cancelling its destruction as a feat.

and someone would rank people like Jaspers and Wanda very high in the cosmic ranking 😉

Originally posted by SoulDevourer
scan? '(especially draining from another character)

yeah but MJJ tried to warp fury right? fury resisted
if not for MJJs weakness the battle wouldve gone on 4ever & stalemate

becuz protege copied Eternitys power?

I referred to the Silver Surfer as an example, like i said before the point im trying to make is important not the characters im using to illustrate said point. Those are interchangeable.

MJJ didnt try to warp the Fury instead he resorted to shape shifting into various forms and attacking him.

If MJJ wasnt so crazy and he actually tried to warp the Fury instead of resorting to comparatively primitive attacks then he probably would have won.

Regardless of whose power Protege said he had warped, what did he do on panel to verify his claims?

Either way lets not go off on a tangent i think the points been made. Whilst i accept that its possible for the creator to exceeded by its creation, there is no on panel instance where this has been shown to be anywhere near the case for Phoenix and Galactus.

(yeah now were offtopic but WTH ^^)

Originally posted by GalacticStorm
MJJ didnt try to warp the Fury instead he resorted to shape shifting into various forms and attacking him.

its not much but its its shape-shifting so that still counts as warping (in Marvel anyway) 😛

Originally posted by SoulDevourer
(yeah now were offtopic but WTH ^^)yeah but right at beginning MJJ changes fury by rolling it into a ball or something (then he punches the ball)

its not much but its its shape-shifting so that still counts as warping (in Marvel anyway) 😛

He compressed him into a ball and that was the first and last time he used his warping powers on Fury instead of just shape shifting himself.

So yeah it hardly counts. But yeah we're off topic lol

Originally posted by GalacticStorm
In the context of what we the posters in this thread were talking about prior to your involvement(i.e Whether or not Galactus embodies a concept in the same fashion as Eternity and the abstracts) then my statement that he embodys nothing is completely acceptable. Even more so when posted alongside that statement was a scan with the exact same statement being made on panel.

What youre doing is wading in here and posting information which isnt relevant to the point being discussed. We were talking about whether or not Galactus is an abstract. He doesnt embody a concept he merely contains cosmic energies. Therefore i was correct. You decided to take issue with the term "embodies" which was a waste of effort given the context the word was being used within.

The context of discussion is not in absolute terms. Does he embody a functional concept in current MU? No. Does he contain the embodiment of something that was a functional concept, and thereby plays an equally, if not more important role than true literal abstracts? Yes. By your definition, the death of any 1 particular abstract would cause the absence of that embodiment. Galactus' death does not cause the absence of any embodiment. In that sense, you are correct. In actuality, his death causes the presence of an embodiment. Curious, as this is the exact reverse of your definition of an abstract, yet you would take issue with anyone "wading" in here and raising discussion and counterpoints? Would you have told this to anyone in the course of discussion? No? Well I guess I have to "wade" into the discussion that you previously controlled. There's a reason why this is called a "discussion board"

The point that Phoenix has greater feats than Galactus is not debatable in the slightest. When Galactus does more than blowing up 3 solar systems then we can have this discussion.

Being the sentient energies of creation the very same ones which powered Galactus in the first place makes this debate quite redundant.

Galactus is not the sentient previous universe. Galactus merely merged with the essence of the previous universe and was transformed within the Cosmic Egg. By current continuity he was transformed by the energies of Phoenix. You could never go all the way mate.

No where on panel does it depict the PF specifically intervening to "transform" Galan into Galactus. If you argue that it actually made a conscious act of specifically transforming Galan, then you implicitly state that it was a high priority for the PF to do so, irrespective of the dying reality. If this is so, then clearly the PF had better things to do (like "transforming" Galactus) than saving the universe from eternal damnation. You could go all the way with your bias representation of your favorite character (the star of your sig), but you've done that repeatedly haven't you?

Your personal thoughts and logic amount to ignoring current continuity because it doesnt paint your favourite character(and the star of your sig) in as good a light as outdated continuity. Your refusal to hear in this post anything but a repetition of your own opinion has resulted in you barging in here and trying to argue about something that no one was talking about in the first place 😬

Your personal thoughts and logic? 😕

HILARIOUS.

I ask again, whose logic is faulty? Mine or yours? You hinge everything on the reed richards quotation...yet you interpret it the wrong way (perhaps on purpose?) I'll put aside all the diminutive adjectives I have in my head to describe your personal thoughts and logic (you could never keep up son) but I'll let you respond first.

The Phoenix Force dies only to be reborn again. It was re-created at the Big Bang. The Phoenix Force saved everyone in the universe from eternal damnation, which made it possible for Galan to still be around to be saved by Eternity/the sentience of the universe. Galan would not have even been remotely aware of the Phoenix Force's involvement, and the Phoenix Force likely would not have recognized Galactus as the former Galan. Plus, some 15 billion years passed, so memories may be a little rusty.

http://preview.tinyurl.com/b8kvue

Originally posted by Tenebrous
I "waded in here" to provide a counter to your posts. Given by your increasingly defensive tone I can see that you handle disagreements with your point of view quite poorly.

The context of discussion is not in absolute terms. Does he embody a functional concept in current MU? No. Does he contain the embodiment of something that was a functional concept, and thereby plays an equally, if not more important role than true literal abstracts? Yes. By your definition, the death of any 1 particular abstract would cause the absence of that embodiment. Galactus' death does not cause the absence of any embodiment. In that sense, you are correct. In actuality, his death causes the presence of an embodiment. Curious, as this is the exact reverse of your definition of an abstract, yet you would take issue with anyone "wading" in here and raising discussion and counterpoints? Would you have told this to anyone in the course of discussion? No? Well I guess I have to "wade" into the discussion that you previously controlled. There's a reason why this is called a "discussion board"

Defensive tone? Is it any surprise when you storm in here insinuating I am giving a biased perspective? We are here talking about whether Galactus is an abstract, whether he embodies a concept in a similar fashion to the likes of Eternity. The answer to that question is a resounding no. Ever keen to hype up your favourite character you came on here talking irrelevance about Galactus containing the power of the previous universe.

Would you like to know why that is irrelevant? Allow me to explain:

Containing energies from the previous universe is a physical feature; it has nothing to do with being the embodiment of a concept. Your question was “Does he contain the embodiment of something that was a functional concept?” The answer to that question is NO. The abstracts are concepts; they are spawned from the universe. They come into being when their individual concepts are possible within the universe. When the void is filled with energy and matter following the Big Bang, the concepts of time(Eternity) and space(Infinity) become relevant so they come into being. When life is made possible the concept of Death is given meaning. Saying Galactus contains the embodiment of a former concept is incorrect because the universe doesn’t embody Eternity, Eternity embodies the universe. You’ve got it mixed up.

It is not my idea that the death of an abstract would cause the absence of that embodiment. That doesn’t make sense as the abstracts themselves are the embodiments. The abstracts are embodiments of concepts within the universe. Get rid of the concept, you get rid of the abstract. Destroy all life, Death has no meaning. Destroy the physical universe; time and space have no meaning. If you are going to debate with me then please read my posts properly. By failing to do so you’re creating unnecessary work for both of us.

The idea that Galactus contains the sum total of energies from the previous universe is an outdated concept that has since been written out of continuity. The latest references to Galactus’ origins refer to him being made who he is by the energies of creation. The creation cycle in Marvel is just that a cycle. You have the Big Bang, followed by the Big Crunch, followed by the Big Bang and so on. It is a revolving process with the same energies involved, just in different states. Galactus does not feature the sum total of energies of the previous universe otherwise his creation would have ended the cycle. The latest references to Galactus’ origins are that he was transformed by the energies of creation as stated by Reed. The handbook says that he was guided to the Cosmic Egg by Eternity and from there he was transformed. That fits in with Reeds comments as the Cosmic Egg is just the condensed preceding stage to the Big Bang.

Originally posted by Tenebrous
You dictate terms of what can be discussed and not? Are you a mod? Since when does destructive power the only barometer for how powerful a character is? This doesn't even begin to enter into discussion how any destruction of universal scale on Galactus' part is utterly out of character. This isn't a way around the issue, this is a fact.

It is a way of getting around the issue. It’s exactly that. You cannot excuse Galactus’ lack of high level feats by saying to perform such feats is out of his character. The only characters that get away with that are the Supreme Beings. If he doesn’t have the feats then as far as this forums concerned he’s just not up there.

Originally posted by Tenebrous
It's redundant to you because the Phoneix by no means "powered Galactus" as you flat out falsely state ad infinitum and ad nauseum. You dispute this? I knew you would. Throw up your scans of the PF "powering Galactus."

It’s redundant because the point is stated on panel specifically. We have Reed Richards linking the two specifically. What you don’t seem to comprehend is that I’m not saying Phoenix specifically and deliberately created Galactus, because to my knowledge that’s not the case. It was Eternity who saw about his creation by guiding him to the Cosmic Egg. However by canon the energies of creation are the Phoenix Force. It is her power that runs through the universe and any being derived from the universe is touched by the power of the Phoenix Force by various degrees of separation. Eternity is not power within himself. He is the sentience of the physical universe, the embodiment of all along the chronal axis. However the physical universe is derived from the energies of creation which is the Phoenix Force. Eternity taps into the energies of the universe which he represents.

Originally posted by Tenebrous
Galactus contains the essence of the previous universe, and infact is the metamorphosed representation of that essence; he IS a universe, he contains one within him. By current continuity he was saved by the Sentience of the Universe (on panel) and the PF (the previous PF) reignited the creation cycle. So Galan's universe dies, and the current 616 MU is born.

Not true. You’re going by an outdated interpretation and as such this is irrelevant. Regardless of whether this paints your favourite character in the better light, it’s just not the case anymore. Giving the cyclical nature of the creation cycle, Galactus does not contain the essence or the power of the entire previous universe. The energy that powered the previous universe is the same energy that powers the current. Galactus is powered by the energies of creation, it was these energies which transformed him into the cosmic being he is currently. Regardless of who helped see this transformation take place (Eternity) as stated on panel, the power was that of the Phoenix Force.

Originally posted by Tenebrous
No where on panel does it depict the PF specifically intervening to "transform" Galan into Galactus. If you argue that it actually made a conscious act of specifically transforming Galan, then you implicitly state that it was a high priority for the PF to do so, irrespective of the dying reality. If this is so, then clearly the PF had better things to do (like "transforming" Galactus) than saving the universe from eternal damnation. You could go all the way with your bias representation of your favorite character (the star of your sig), but you've done that repeatedly haven't you?

I never once argued this. This is just you jumping to the defence of your fave character without taking the time out to properly read posts. You saw the words Galactus and Phoenix in the same sentence and all rationality went out the window.

Originally posted by Tenebrous
I ask again, whose logic is faulty? Mine or yours? You hinge everything on the reed richards quotation...yet you interpret it the wrong way (perhaps on purpose?) I'll put aside all the diminutive adjectives I have in my head to describe your personal thoughts and logic (you could never keep up son) but I'll let you respond first.

http://preview.tinyurl.com/b8kvue

My argument is not hinged on the Reed quotation. The Reed quotation complements my other sources which state that Phoenix is the life force of reality, the power source behind the stars, the mother of the stars, the sum and substance of life, the prime universal force of life and that its avatar is a flame from the Big Bang. All of that coupled with Reed saying that the energies of creation are one and the same as the Big Bang and just another name for the Phoenix Force which transformed Galactus into who he is makes my argument officially the case.

Originally posted by GalacticStorm
My argument is not hinged on the Reed quotation. The Reed quotation complements my other sources which state that Phoenix is the life force of reality, the power source behind the stars, the mother of the stars, the sum and substance of life, the prime universal force of life and that its avatar is a flame from the Big Bang. All of that coupled with Reed saying that the energies of creation are one and the same as the Big Bang and just another name for the Phoenix Force which transformed Galactus into who he is makes my argument officially the case.

I taught it was Galan merge with Eternity that transformed both into Galactus.

Originally posted by Bouboumaster
I taught it was Galan merge with Eternity that transformed both into Galactus.

Eternity doesnt have a physical body. Hes just the sentience of the universe. That why he requires M-bodys(That black cloaked figure) to have a physical presence within the universe that he represents.

The previous Eternity guided Galan to the Cosmic Egg as he was dying in order for Galan to be transformed into Galactus. However whilst it was planned by the previous Eternity, it was the Phoenix Forces power which actually powered the transformation.

bump

Batman with IG

bump 😉

Originally posted by GalacticStorm
bump 😉

Originally posted by Mekrob
fail

Depends on ones intentions son 😱

Was your intention to fail?

Originally posted by Mindset
Was your intention to fail?

If i say what my intentions are then i will fail 🙂