HOM Wanda vs. Thanos w/ IG

Originally posted by quanchi112
Hulk just revelaed he can get angry enough to dominate Thor so iyo toss the other fights aside as we have seen his true strength. Ig is absolute power the un isn't.

Snap.

Originally posted by quanchi112
Their powers were revealed to have complete mastery over time, etc.

This made you become supreme being on panel when used.

Originally posted by OneDumbG0
Oh, Worldbreaker Hulk? That isn't Hulk thunderclapping the Multiverse dead. When Hulk demonstrates an exponential increase in power such that he starts one-shotting Celestials with his loogies, let us know. Thor demonstrated he could one-shot Durok dead with a self-godblast. That didn't change the dynamic between Thor and Hulk as much either. When Thor starts one-shotting Multiverses with Mjolnir, let us know. Until then, your attempted analogies are comically poor. UN can destroy AND RECREATE the entire Marvel Multiverse instantly. IG can take over single 616 universe. UN is exponentially more powerful based on on-panel facts. Get over it.

I was also discussing Hulk and Thor matching up strength wise not overall power wise. You need to focus here. Ig is supreme on panel in the 616 while the un not so much.

Originally posted by Black bolt z
They were always able to do that.It just wasn't clear to thanos until he gazed in death's infinity well.Thats not changing the purpose.Thats realizing they have greater power and changing how they are used.

Their powers changed just like I said in Thanos quest.

Originally posted by quanchi112
So even though Hulk clearly got the better of Thor and the question wasn't whether he can destroy the multiverse it's whether or not we should just focus on current stories rather than his previous encounters against Thor. You can't even focus on your logic and are so fixated on talking about the mulitverse again.

I was also discussing Hulk and Thor matching up strength wise not overall power wise. You need to focus here. Ig is supreme on panel in the 616 while the un not so much.

Focus on this: UN destroys AND RECREATES the Marvel Multiverse instantly. The IG not so much. At all. kinda

Originally posted by quanchi112
We didn't discover they were able to do what they did until Thanos quest. If Thanos knew about the gems or the reader did back when don't you think he would have used them differently.

Their powers changed just like I said in Thanos quest.

Except not at all. 🙄

Lawlz @ this discussion still going on.

Originally posted by OneDumbG0
You're conflating "cause" with "effect." The "effect" is the same. The "cause" isn't, i.e., the "cause" being a more powerful nullification blast. A matchstick has the same "effect" of burning something as a large torch would do. However, it's not the same "cause," i.e., torch's heat is much greater than the matchstick's. Although the object will be burned and the "effect" is the same, the respective flame's power that is being applied is not the same, accordingly, the "cause" is different. Equivocation. Human Torch can manipulate heat freely. The amount of heat that he can manipulate depends on it's overall power. If it's a tiny amount of heat, easy peasy. If it's on a much grander scale, i.e., universe-incinerating blast, he can't do squat about it. The amount of power he's manipulating doesn't remain the same between the two situations. The power the UN displayed in the situations didn't remain the same either. No. Only if the UN fired a sphere that would exponentially expand and cover the universe would it have nullified the universe. Quasar only fired a limited sphere that expanded to nullify Magus only (and failed). And you completely ignore that Reed didn't only just fire a nullification blast that instantly wiped out the Marvel Multiverse. He ALSO RECREATED IT INSTANTLY. The two instances are different. If Surfer shoots a blip of Power Cosmic at something and later instantly destroys/recreates the entire Marvel Multiverse with his Power Cosmic, the latter was a much more powerful feat that involved exponentially greater power. This isn't hard. It's elementary. We're using alternate UN's as an argument? Fine, alternate Infinity Nuts burned out fighting alternate Celestial Host. Based on using alternate universes: Infinity Nuts <<<<<<<<<<<<<<< UN.

Regardless, your logic is still pure straw-man. You and other Infinity Nuts proponents have continually straw-manned me by reducing my argument that power = size. I never said power = size. If you have to erase more, the power involved must also increase. That can involve size, but that's not the only thing. If the UN were to nullify a depowered human Odin, it would do it easier than nullifying a fully powered Odin who contains the entire store of Odinforce within his physical frame. There's that much more to nullify. Nullifying a blow-up doll of Death requires far less than nullifying Death and the entire concept of death across a universe. There's that much more to nullify. This is common sense.

1. Show me ANY ON PANEL EVIDENCE through narration or depiction that illustrates your point that the nullification properties are increased when the scope is increased. You can't and will not find it. How many times do we need to go over this. I never argued that more power would need to be generated to wipe out a multiverse vs a planet.. what I'm arguing and what is backed up ON PANEL is that the nullification properties doesn't changed one bit. The potency IS NOT increased because the scope is increased. Quasar even made this point clear if he didn't limit the size of the mushroom the universe could be nullified which exactly proves this point... On the scope had to be kept in checked and the nullification properties remain a constant. If he allowed the size of the mushroom to be bigger that same blast could have wiped out the universe i.e. nullified. You have ZERO proof that the nullification potency increases with the scope. Nothing. The energies may increase the nullification properties do not.

2. Furthermore... the whole concept of death across ALL universes was wiped out by the UN... This was done by a TINY EVEN SMALLER nullification sphere... yet that tiny sphere nullified death in her totality. Doing such would by your theory require a great deal more power than let's say a universal destroying blast as your erasing death (multiversal) across all timelines and universes. Now... by the same token when Quasar fired at the Magus he was having to confront somebody GREATER in power than death and fighting objects (IG) that came from the IB who created the everything including the LT. By your reasoning that nullification blast/potency would've had to be exponentially greater than just this tiny sphere to fight that kinda of power. Just like in your Odin example... would it take more power to nullify human odin or odin force odin... you said the latter.. well then it must have taken a lot more power than just universal power to take a person with objects much more powerful than universal who are above multiversal abstracts. You can't have it both ways ODG

3. Again... how many times do I need to make this point... just because somebody doesn't do something doesn't mean they can't or it can be held against them to prove superiority. For example Thanos has never lifted a car but spiderman has... does that mean spiderman is stronger. Thanos has almost ZERO lifting feats yet we know he's exponentially stronger than spiderman based on other evidence. To go further.. Thor, Hulk, Herc.. have exponentially greater lifting feats than Thanos... yet do we consider them stronger than Thanos because he hasn't.. Nope we don't do we. Wait how can that be... they have done something exponentially grander in scale than Thanos.. hmmmmm.. the reason why is because in DIRECT confrontation Thanos has proven to be stronger and superior in pretty much ever way. Hmmmm sounds very similiar to the IG vs the UN. Just because the IG has NEVER been concerned with destroying multiple universes doesn't mean that can be held against it when talking about overall power. Just as the example I've given don't prove strength. The reason we know the IG is every bit as powerful and more so is because... it wtf pwns multiversal abstracts with ease... it wtf pwns the ULTIMATE weapon with ease... it came from the IB that created EVERYTHING...

4. Nullifying and recreating stuff is very cool indeed and a very impressive feat.. but again that doesn't prove superiority of power as it is only one area. The IG is exponentially superior in many more areas. Just because Wolverine has much more impressive feats than Sabertooth doesn't mean he's superior. Why... because sabertooth has wtfpwned wolverine on many an occasion. Sure Mr. Fantastic is much better and elasticity and stretching out over huge areas compared to Thor... great he's superior in that one area.. great does that mean he's superior in power to Thor... nah.

Originally posted by quanchi112

We didn't discover they were able to do what they did until Thanos quest. If Thanos knew about the gems or the reader did back when don't you think he would have used them differently.

Their powers changed just like I said in Thanos quest.

Originally posted by KuRuPT Thanosi
1. Show me ANY ON PANEL EVIDENCE through narration or depiction that illustrates your point that the nullification properties are increased when the scope is increased. You can't and will not find it. How many times do we need to go over this. I never argued that more power would need to be generated to wipe out a multiverse vs a planet.. what I'm arguing and what is backed up ON PANEL is that the nullification properties doesn't changed one bit. The potency IS NOT increased because the scope is increased. Quasar even made this point clear if he didn't limit the size of the mushroom the universe could be nullified which exactly proves this point... On the scope had to be kept in checked and the nullification properties remain a constant. If he allowed the size of the mushroom to be bigger that same blast could have wiped out the universe i.e. nullified. You have ZERO proof that the nullification potency increases with the scope. Nothing. The energies may increase the nullification properties do not.

2. Furthermore... the whole concept of death across ALL universes was wiped out by the UN... This was done by a TINY EVEN SMALLER nullification sphere... yet that tiny sphere nullified death in her totality. Doing such would by your theory require a great deal more power than let's say a universal destroying blast as your erasing death (multiversal) across all timelines and universes. Now... by the same token when Quasar fired at the Magus he was having to confront somebody GREATER in power than death and fighting objects (IG) that came from the IB who created the everything including the LT. By your reasoning that nullification blast/potency would've had to be exponentially greater than just this tiny sphere to fight that kinda of power. Just like in your Odin example... would it take more power to nullify human odin or odin force odin... you said the latter.. well then it must have taken a lot more power than just universal power to take a person with objects much more powerful than universal who are above multiversal abstracts. You can't have it both ways ODG

3. Again... how many times do I need to make this point... just because somebody doesn't do something doesn't mean they can't or it can be held against them to prove superiority. For example Thanos has never lifted a car but spiderman has... does that mean spiderman is stronger. Thanos has almost ZERO lifting feats yet we know he's exponentially stronger than spiderman based on other evidence. To go further.. Thor, Hulk, Herc.. have exponentially greater lifting feats than Thanos... yet do we consider them stronger than Thanos because he hasn't.. Nope we don't do we. Wait how can that be... they have done something exponentially grander in scale than Thanos.. hmmmmm.. the reason why is because in DIRECT confrontation Thanos has proven to be stronger and superior in pretty much ever way. Hmmmm sounds very similiar to the IG vs the UN. Just because the IG has NEVER been concerned with destroying multiple universes doesn't mean that can be held against it when talking about overall power. Just as the example I've given don't prove strength. The reason we know the IG is every bit as powerful and more so is because... it wtf pwns multiversal abstracts with ease... it wtf pwns the ULTIMATE weapon with ease... it came from the IB that created EVERYTHING...

4. Nullifying and recreating stuff is very cool indeed and a very impressive feat.. but again that doesn't prove superiority of power as it is only one area. The IG is exponentially superior in many more areas. Just because Wolverine has much more impressive feats than Sabertooth doesn't mean he's superior. Why... because sabertooth has wtfpwned wolverine on many an occasion. Sure Mr. Fantastic is much better and elasticity and stretching out over huge areas compared to Thor... great he's superior in that one area.. great does that mean he's superior in power to Thor... nah.

Originally posted by KuRuPT Thanosi
1. You can't and will not find it. How many times do we need to go over this. I never argued that more power would need to be generated to wipe out a multiverse vs a planet.. what I'm arguing and what is backed up ON PANEL is that the nullification properties doesn't changed one bit. The potency IS NOT increased because the scope is increased.

Originally posted by KuRuPT Thanosi
2. Furthermore... the whole concept of death across ALL universes was wiped out by the UN... This was done by a TINY EVEN SMALLER nullification sphere... yet that tiny sphere nullified death in her totality. Doing such would by your theory require a great deal more power than let's say a universal destroying blast as your erasing death (multiversal) across all timelines and universes. Now... by the same token when Quasar fired at the Magus he was having to confront somebody GREATER in power than death and fighting objects (IG) that came from the IB who created the everything including the LT . . . You can't have it both ways ODG.

Originally posted by KuRuPT Thanosi
3. Again... how many times do I need to make this point... just because somebody doesn't do something doesn't mean they can't or it can be held against them to prove superiority. For example Thanos has never lifted a car but spiderman has... does that mean spiderman is stronger. Thanos has almost ZERO lifting feats yet we know he's exponentially stronger than spiderman based on other evidence. To go further.. Thor, Hulk, Herc.. have exponentially greater lifting feats than Thanos... yet do we consider them stronger than Thanos because he hasn't..

This is why no-limit fallacies are fallacies. Because through their use, you can keep vaulting one side of the argument over the other indiscriminately without any shred of proof via pure speculation. That's why you don't engage in it from the get-go.

Originally posted by KuRuPT Thanosi
4. Nullifying and recreating stuff is very cool indeed and a very impressive feat.. but again that doesn't prove superiority of power as it is only one area. The IG is exponentially superior in many more areas.

There is no distinction between "power" and "potency" here. The Abraxas blast was more powerful. Exponentially so. We both agree on that. There is no argument otherwise.

You forgot that Quasar was firing it at a Magus who didn't have the IG operational at that point. So when he fired it, he wasn't contending with, nor intending to fire it at, anybody with that kind of power. This entire argument is made moot by that simple fact.

Accordingly, I'm not having it both ways.Thanos is physically stronger than Spiderman, Hulk and Thor because he man-handles them via pimphand. Even in the absence of that, you're still using a no-limit fallacy. Which if you were being fair, then I could use to say, "Well, the UN hasn't shown limits yet... so since it didn't try to nullify LT, maybe it could. And IG clearly doesn't surpass LT, so based on imaginary feats, UN wins." I'm not arguing the merits of sheer power over versatility. I'm arguing that the level of power involved between both artifacts is exponentially different based on on-panel facts.

Your opinion is noted and you can feel free to argue that with other folks who would argue that UN's sheer power > IG's versatility. I'm arguing that UN's sheer power > IG's sheer power.

Originally posted by Black bolt z
Yes there is.The potency never changes.Meaning that the power levels don't change for the destruction but they do change for the scope.Obviously nullifying a multiverse takes more power then a marble but that is only for the scope.The level of damage/destruction never changes.

As I said earlier the power damage/destruction levels(i'll just use the word potency) doesn't change,it wouldn't have mattered what he was firing it at,the effect og being nullfied would still have been the same because the potency doesn't change.

The end result doesn't change. The sheer amount of power involved does between an atom-sized nullification sphere and a Multiverse-wide destruction/recreation blast. You're arguing past me again.

Originally posted by Black bolt z
Actually according to most people on the forums the UN couldn't nullify the LT.I opened a thread on it and they said no.Also IG has never fought LT so clearly it does not surpass it.

UN sheer power>IG sheer power.

This is what I'm arguing. And you're agreeing with me.

Nobody's arguing the effect of a nullification blast. It will nullify. That doesn't mean the sheer amount of power someone would have to contend with remains static when you deal with a marble-sized nullification sphere as opposed to a Multiverse-wide nullification/recreation blast. You're arguing past me.

The end result doesn't change. The sheer amount of power involved does between an atom-sized nullification sphere and a Multiverse-wide destruction/recreation blast. You're arguing past me again.

According to most people the IG can't instantly destroy then instantly recreate the entire Marvel Multiverse either. So it's a wash when you trash the no-limit fallacies and you're left with the UN still demonstrating exponentially superior power.

This is what I'm arguing. And you're agreeing with me.

Originally posted by Black bolt z
Your equating size to power.Thats no how it works

Once again your equating size to power.You think that a larger blast has more potency but it doesn't.

No, you're arguing with someone else. You already agree that nullifying a marble takes less power than nullifying AND RECREATING the Multiverse: "Nullfying the marble takes much less power than the multiverse." You're trying to argue past me.

Originally posted by Black bolt z
Once again I'm not sure about the recreating part.You may be right on that.But as for the destroying we won't know.Infinity gems can never be used in unison so we won't know how large of a feat it can do(which would be,as it's largest,merging 2 universes).IG vs. LT has never been done but most people seem to the LT>IG

OK.At least we got that.But you do know IG versitility>UN sheer power right?

The idea that versatility > sheer power is shallow in itself. A plastic robot having 1,001 functions doesn't mean it'll overcome being destroyed by the sheer power of a nuclear bomb dropped on it's head just because the nuke only has 1 function, i.e., exploding. Nuff said. Go argue with someone else over such shallow propositions.

Originally posted by OneDumbG0

No. You're straw-manning me and misrepresenting me by suggesting I equate power = size. I don't.

The why do you think UN>IG if an incomplete IG owned UN.If the potency is the same and you don't equate size to power what is your logic?there is none...

[quote]No, you're arguing with someone else. You already agree that nullifying a marble takes less power than nullifying AND RECREATING the Multiverse: "Nullfying the marble takes much less power than the multiverse."

Since you can't responsibly divorce the sheer amount of power demonstrated by the act of Multiversal-recreation from the UN's power, stop arguing past me with no-limit fallacies. Furthermore, you don't get to use a no-limit fallacy based purely on speculation and foreclose my use of the same no-limit fallacy. Otherwise, you're invoking a double-standard. LT > IG. He said so and he demonstrated so. What Warlock achieved with an enraged torrent of power, LT instantly fixed with a nonchalant snap of his fingers.

The idea that versatility > sheer power is shallow in itself. A plastic robot having 1,001 functions doesn't mean it'll overcome being destroyed by the sheer power of a nuclear bomb dropped on it's head just because the nuke only has 1 function, i.e., exploding. Nuff said. Go argue with someone else over such shallow propositions.

Originally posted by Black bolt z
The why do you think UN>IG if an incomplete IG owned UN.If the potency is the same and you don't equate size to power what is your logic?there is none...

Yes but they never acctually fought.LT ressuected the room of cosmics adam killed.Thats not direct confrontation.

Yes UN has one function and IG has many.IG could stop time and take away the UN from the user.IG could make reality so IG turns everything it touches to pillows or so it just doesn't work.IG wtfpwned quasars sphere proving IG versiltility>UN sheer power.

LT wasn't even fazed by that blast. LT > IG. That is apparent from Warlock and the Infinity Watch #1. Warlock cannot even comprehend the LT's power despite his self-styled omniscience. What makes you think his self-styled omnipotence will do any better against the LT?

UN-user like Reed instantly destroys and recreates the Marvel Multiverse so that Thanos never obtained IG in the first place. /shrug Quasar didn't shoot an instantaneous Multiverse-wide destroying/recreating blast, did he? Take the shallow versatility > sheer power argument elsewhere. That's a tangent I couldn't care less about due to its inherent silliness. See above for the 1,001 plastic robot vs nuke example.

Why don't you think the UN > IG since you already admit that the UN > IG in sheer power? Furthermore, a marble-sized nullification sphere is a miniscule manifestation of the UN's true sheer power. It's the same reason people don't think Maelstrom w/ Anomaly > Thanos w/ IG, because although Maelstrom was completely immune to an IG blast, that blast was a miniscule manifestation of a not-yet-wholly competent IG user. If you admit that Maelstrom w/Anomaly > Thanos w/IG, then you're free to think IG > UN and I won't argue with you. I'll just agree to disagree with you. But until you admit that, you're asserting a double-standard and your entire argument is hollow.

LT wasn't even fazed by that blast. LT > IG. That is apparent from Warlock and the Infinity Watch #1. Warlock cannot even comprehend the LT's power despite his self-styled omniscience. What makes you think his self-styled omnipotence will do any better against the LT?

UN-user like Reed instantly destroys and recreates the Marvel Multiverse so that Thanos never obtained IG in the first place. /shrug Quasar didn't shoot an instantaneous Multiverse-wide destroying/recreating blast, did he? Take the shallow versatility > sheer power argument elsewhere. That's a tangent I couldn't care less about due to its inherent silliness. See above for the 1,001 plastic robot vs nuke example.

Originally posted by Black bolt z
Answer this question:if UN potency doesn't vary(which it doesn't)

It does vary.

Originally posted by TheTyrant
It does vary.

Originally posted by Black bolt z
Once again you are equating size to power.Answer this question:if UN potency doesn't vary(which it doesn't) then why do you think UN>IG when incomplete IG wtfpwned UN.

I'm not saying LT isn't >IG i'm just saying they never acctually fought.

Instantaneous doesn't matter and scope doesn't matter.Potency doesn't vary and you won't find anything that says otherwise.
Shallow versitility?Obviously you don't read the posts.Incomplete IG>UN so I guess even without reality gem IG has enough versitility to own UN.I wouldn't call that shallow...

So what?

Incomplete IG > marble-sized sphere. Believing that wtfpwning a slowly expanding marble-sized sphere = wtfpwning an instantaneous destruction/recreation Multiverse-blast isn't just shallow, it's retarded. Otherwise Maelstrom > IG and Ironman repulsors > IG.

Originally posted by OneDumbG0
I already answered this. Don't be an obtuse broken record. I already explained that I don't believe power = size.
Believing that wtfpwning a slowly expanding marble-sized sphere = wtfpwning an instantaneous destruction/recreation Multiverse-blast isn't just shallow, it's retarded.