HOM Wanda vs. Thanos w/ IG

Originally posted by Nihilist
Whilst Thanos is conected to the gems, she cant destroy the gems, hell it took the Living Tribunal(with orders from TOAA) to render them useless and Wanda has nothing like LT or TOAA in terms of power so she wont have that kind of control over the gems to simply wipe them/Thanos from existance.

Firstly, everyone is doing anything in comics because of TOAA. Orders or not. No one has nothing on TOAA. For LT, it's a different story.

Wanda was the most powerful being during HoM because TOAA wanted it that way.

Originally posted by Xplosive
Firstly, everyone is doing anything in comics because of TOAA. Orders or not. No one has nothing on TOAA. For LT, it's a different story.

Wanda was the most powerful being during HoM because TOAA wanted it that way.

Originally posted by OneDumbG0
^ Yes it is less powerful: [b](i) limiting the extent and size; (ii) delaying the effect of the blast; (iii) and not recreating anything... is using less power of the UN.

Especially when you're trying to compare it to an instantaneous Multiverse-wide destruction/recreation. Quasar limited the power building up within the UN, because he wanted to limit it to just Magus.

UN's true power accomplished an exponentially greater feat than any the IG has. So your comparison is worthless, just like repulsor ray's >>> Gems' power was worthless when the Gems' true power was revealed. So unless the IG can surpass the feat, it's not more powerful. Do you claim that the IG can surpass the feat or not?

Because you are now refusing to do so. And I'm good with that. stoned [/B]

Feats are all that matter to you and actual comparisons you only take in when you want to which means you are incredibly biased and wrong. You can continue to use double standards but it only hurts you not I.

Originally posted by Mr Master
The power of the UN was never limited by Quasar or anyone,
especially since the UN doesn't vary in power.
The UN nullifies it's target with the same energies, be it a mouse or an area on a cosmic scale.

Quasar limited the size of the nullification sphere,
which has absolutely nothing to do with the potency of its power.
It does however have to do with the amount of area being affected.

The IG stomped (in one move) the same being the UN remade.

The IG never remade the Multiverse because of the three 616 IG wielders,
none ever wanted to do so, or needed to either. 😬

Thanos literally only wanted 616.
Warlock didn't want any Universe.
Nebula didn't have the mental capacity to survive with the IG,
and this mental hadicap allowed even Warlock to surpass her omniscience.
Something that was stated on panel by Warlock himself would NOT have worked with Thanos.

TOAA itself had to place the second restriction on the Gems.
The LT himself for one moment had to gauge his own power to see if it could surpass the IG.
The IG was stated on panel by several beings including abstracts to make the wielder "God/Omnipotent/Supreme" within the same story the UN resides.
Heck even Starlin in a Marvel Age interview stated that the IG makes one GOD!

That aside, in a direct confrontation an incomplete IG pwnd the UN.
where even the writer clearly points out
that the "word Ultimate" (UN) "holds little weight" against the IG.
That right there stamps the truth about what the IG next to the UN is.

Originally posted by Nihilist
Regardless, Wanda wouldnt be able to simply wish something a powerful as the Gems out of existance.

Like I said. Depends on TOAA. Maybe or maybe not. It doesn't even matter. I simply give Wanda the win, because she showed more power than IG.

About IG vs. UN. IG wins, no doubt.

Originally posted by quanchi112
This has been explained to you and it's size doesn't limit it's power level. It seems you don't even grasp the un so why argue for something you continually misinterpret?

Feats are all that matter to you and actual comparisons you only take in when you want to which means you are incredibly biased and wrong. You can continue to use double standards but it only hurts you not I.

Couldn't agree more.

Yes, evidence of the UN's true power and evidence of the IG's true power are what matters to me. I'm not going to pick and choose the UN's best feat, and some Star Gem feat from a time where the Gems didn't grant omnipotence and act like such a comparison is cogent. Otherwise Ironman's repulsor rays >>> Gems' power.

You agree with Mr Master that the power demonstrated in a slowly expanding tiny sphere and only nullifies Quasar is as powerful as a blast that instantly expands to engulf and destroy the entire Marvel Multiverse... and then recreates it instantly? Comedy gold. Seriously... Quasar takes the UN, feels the power building in it, and limits it to a tiny sphere... and somehow that's just as much power as an instant Multiverse destruction/recreation blast?

crylaugh

Originally posted by OneDumbG0
^ Yes it is less powerful: [b](i) limiting the extent and size; (ii) delaying the effect of the blast; (iii) and not recreating anything... is using less power of the UN.

Especially when you're trying to compare it to an instantaneous Multiverse-wide destruction/recreation. Quasar limited the power building up within the UN, because he wanted to limit it to just Magus.

UN's true power accomplished an exponentially greater feat than any the IG has. So your comparison is worthless, just like repulsor ray's >>> Gems' power was worthless when the Gems' true power was revealed. So unless the IG can surpass the feat, it's not more powerful. Do you claim that the IG can surpass the feat or not?

Because you are now refusing to do so. And I'm good with that. stoned [/B]

The argument isn't whether the UN could've erased and recreated more... we know it could've. The question and only real thing that matter is... was the tiny sphere of nullification any less potent than a bigger sphere of nullification. If that tiny sphere was only smaller and not trying to recreate anything then you've failed to prove your case. There aren't different levels of nullification potency. If so please provide scans that say some nullification sphere are less potent in their erasing properties than others. You won't find it because it doesn't exist. Nobody is arguing the UN could erase more or recreate more.. who is arguing that point? WE know it can. However all that matters for this debate is what I said above. The IG wtfpwned the UN and it's same potency nullification blast that was isolated to Magus/Citadel but no less potent. Period.

This thread is still going.

Originally posted by KuRuPT Thanosi
The argument isn't whether the UN could've erased and recreated more... we know it could've. The question and only real thing that matter is... was the tiny sphere of nullification any less potent than a bigger sphere of nullification. If that tiny sphere was only smaller and not trying to recreate anything then you've failed to prove your case. There aren't different levels of nullification potency. If so please provide scans that say some nullification sphere are less potent in their erasing properties than others. You won't find it because it doesn't exist. Nobody is arguing the UN could erase more or recreate more.. who is arguing that point? WE know it can. However all that matters for this debate is what I said above. The IG wtfpwned the UN and it's same potency nullification blast that was isolated to Magus/Citadel but no less potent. Period.

Do you really expect me to take that question, sourced in some of the most transparently desperate logic I've ever faced, seriously? crackers

What's more powerful? Tiny sphere of nullification. Or Marvel Multiverse destroying/recreating blast. This isn't hard. uhuh

Originally posted by OneDumbG0
Is a tiny sphere of slowly expanding nullification energy less powerful than a blast that encompassed, destroyed and recreated the entire Marvel Multiverse instantaneously?

Do you really expect me to take that question, sourced in some of the most transparently desperate logic I've ever faced, seriously? crackers

What's more powerful? Tiny sphere of nullification. Or Marvel Multiverse destroying/recreating blast. This isn't hard. uhuh

Faulty comparison and logic. I don't know how many times I need to repeat this.. Nobody is questioning that UN can erase and reset the multiverse in the blink of an eye. Thus the radius and scale is so much larger in size. However, and understand this point... the ERASING properties and potency isn't change at all. Whether it's one planet or one universe or a multiverse... the nullification power isn't changed at all. It's the scale that is changed. I'm not sure how this is a difficult concept to understand. If you feel there is different nullification potency settings.. then by all means post the scans that outline that being so.

^ Nullification power isn't changed at all... so the power that builds in the UN when you have a slowly expanding tiny sphere is the same power that builds for an instant Multiverse-wide destruction/recreation blast.

Tiny sphere of nullification energy = Multiverse-wide destruction/recreation blast...

... this is indeed a difficult concept to grasp. I don't speak retard. arrrgh

^^Nice red-herring. You obviously have a difficult time with words like scale/scope don't you. Show me ONE scan that indicates the potency of the nullification can vary. Any scan please. The problem is they don't exist. So what we are left with is your typical assumptions that defy logic. What varies in the UN is the scale of the nullification not the scale of the potency of the nullification. Whether it's an ant or a planet.. it's still has the same nullification potency to erase said object. What is different as clearly shown on panel.. is the scale/scope of the nullification. You don't speak retard.. yet you make retarded claims that defy the on panel evidence and logic… hmmm…doesn't compute.

^ Explain to me how this:

... is just as powerful as this:

And that last scan is half of the feat, as the other half involves completely recreating Multi-Eternity. And I'm the one using a red herring? kinda

Originally posted by OneDumbG0
Yes, the power level was limited. It's size was limited, as was the speed of the effect, as was whether stuff that got nullified got recreated.

Yes, evidence of the UN's true power and evidence of the IG's true power are what matters to me. I'm not going to pick and choose the UN's best feat, and some Star Gem feat from a time where the Gems didn't grant omnipotence and act like such a comparison is cogent. Otherwise Ironman's repulsor rays >>> Gems' power.

You agree with Mr Master that the power demonstrated in a slowly expanding tiny sphere and only nullifies Quasar is as powerful as a blast that instantly expands to engulf and destroy the entire Marvel Multiverse... and then recreates it instantly? Comedy gold. Seriously... Quasar takes the UN, feels the power building in it, and limits it to a tiny sphere... and somehow that's just as much power as an instant Multiverse destruction/recreation blast?

crylaugh

You pick one feat which only applies to the un and claim it's more powerful based on that. If we did that with characters you'd complain and abandon it. You are a hypocrite plain and simple. You pick and choose what logic you need to apply to win the debate at hand completely dismissing vital pieces like evidence.

I'm not the only one. You seem to struggle with simple concepts such as scale and scope. This is your problem not my own. If you want to continue to parade around feats and dismiss comparisons i'll have so much fun with you.

Originally posted by quanchi112
No, you can't prove it either. You don't prove anything anymore it's just one unbackable claim after the other with you.

You pick one feat which only applies to the un and claim it's more powerful based on that. If we did that with characters you'd complain and abandon it. You are a hypocrite plain and simple. You pick and choose what logic you need to apply to win the debate at hand completely dismissing vital pieces like evidence.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
This quote pretty much describes you in a nut-shell Quan.

Originally posted by quanchi112
He backs up his claims while I don't. That's the difference between the two of us.

Originally posted by quanchi112
No, you can't prove it either. You don't prove anything anymore it's just one unbackable claim after the other with you.

You pick one feat which only applies to the un and claim it's more powerful based on that. If we did that with characters you'd complain and abandon it. You are a hypocrite plain and simple. You pick and choose what logic you need to apply to win the debate at hand completely dismissing vital pieces like evidence.

I'm not the only one. You seem to struggle with simple concepts such as scale and scope. This is your problem not my own. If you want to continue to parade around feats and dismiss comparisons i'll have so much fun with you.

Actually, you pick one feat. Magus owning Quasar. And you wish to ignore everything else. Which would be like me seizing upon Ironman destroying the Star Gem. So take that hypocrisy sticker and staple it to your own forehead, mkay?

For anyone who thinks a tiny sphere of nullification uses as much power as a Multiverse-wide instant destruction/recreation, here's the truth: that's retarded.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
👆 It sure is.

^ I used a fact. But you wouldn't understand those. kinda

Originally posted by quanchi112
Switching a quote around what a mature and effective debating tactic. What evidence has he given that the un is more powerful than the ig?