Originally posted by KuRuPT ThanosiI'm not throwing it away. I understand that Magus beat Quasar. I understand that in future confrontations, if Quasar and Magus fought again, Magus would likely win. But that still doesn't inform you which artifact is more powerful. That was made crystal clear by comparing their greatest respective feats.
You can't throw away this confrontation because it was Quasar when nothing was ever stated that anybody else would've made a difference. The author in interviews after even made it clear what his intent was.. The IG>UN in a direct confrontation. Yet somehow you wanna go.. well that doesn't count because Quasar was using it. The UN isn't a standalone object it doesn't just nullify whatever it wants alone. It has to have a user correct? Thus, by your reasoning you could say.. ooo well Galactus was using thus that didn't prove anything. No the UN always has a user and regardless of user the IG has many more ways to win. That was made crystal clear.
Originally posted by KuRuPT ThanosiYou're saying that Reed is greater than Doom. If you think Reed mapped the Omniverse and that requires a higher level of "greatness," and Doom never did anything as great, you must conclude that Reed is greater than Doom. I don't see why you're struggling with this.
So, then you're saying Reed is greater than Doom then? By your logic Doom has never ever accomplished anything on the scale to what Reed did correct? So, thus you also consider Reed greater if you apply your own logic. After all, Reed has the greater one feat. I don't agree with this line of thinking but want to see if you agree with your own.
Originally posted by KuRuPT ThanosiThe Mxy/Ultimator confrontation does not contradict me at all. You're confusing yourself. Mxy and Ultimator have the power in themselves. They don't rely on artifacts. If Ultimator was more powerful than Mxy in a direct confrontation, than Ultimator is more powerful. Magus fighting Quasar isn't a direct confrontation of IG and UN. At all. It's as much a direct confrontation as having a shoot-off with you where you hold a handgun and I hold a rocket launcher. Twisting that around and acting like the users don't matter is nonsense. Magus beat Quasar. Magus would likely beat Quasar again. None of that means the IG is more powerful. You profess to have acknowledged this, but you still try to equivocate around the common sense underlying that.
With Mxy and the Ultimator.. Mxy has the greater feats right? Yet the Ultimator was said to be superior and mxy AT first couldn't do anything to the Ultimator. Of course in the end Mxy was able to through PIS. However, mxy has the greater of the feats and by your logic in this thread that counts for more than a direct confrontation. As much as you want to twist the fact that the IG and UN wasn't a direct confrontation it without a doubt was. They aren't stand alone objects they will always have users period. Some better than others. However, a nood with the IG and without the reality gem (very powerful) beat a CA noob with the UN. It was SO easy in fact the author wanted to convey that to us. With but a thought… That my friend is a direct confrontation no matter how you slice it. So.. which one do you value more.. a direct confrontation or one with ONE greater feat?
In a "direct confrontation" Thanos w/IG was completely impotent against Maelstrom. But you can only conclude that Maelstrom is more powerful than Thanos w/IG if you ignore the fact that taken in isolation, Thanos w/IG performed far greater feats of power than Maelstrom. It's common sense that such a conclusion works only from ignorance. You recognize that (or you should). And if you do recognize that, then you have to apply it here concerning the IG and UN. Because you can only conclude that IG is more powerful than UN if you ignore the fact that taken in isolation, UN performed an exponentially far greater feat of power than IG.
