Originally posted by kgkgThose posters who disregard comparisons in place of feats have no grasp of the writer's intentions at all. Exitar wins this all day.
Exitar wins I don't know why people are all about feats when there is clear evidence at that time that Exitar > Celestial > KubikPeople want to go wow he destroyed universes.... by feats Odin has more destructive feat that Celestial look were that got him against Celestials.
Anyway Exitar wins.
Originally posted by King Kandy
I don't think hyperbole is the right word here, that's an exaggeration of something. Not something that's just totally wrong. If Kubik would lose to Exitar after a hard fought battle, but said Exitar was thousands of times greater, that's hyperbole. If he could beat him, but said Exitar was thousands of times stronger, that's just incorrect.
Exactly.
Originally posted by kgkg
Exitar wins I don't know why people are all about feats when there is clear evidence at that time that Exitar > Celestial > KubikPeople want to go wow he destroyed universes.... by feats Odin has more destructive feat that Celestial look were that got him against Celestials.
Anyway Exitar wins.
On paper Batman is several orders of power below Superman but with weakness exploitation he can take Big Blue down. The difference here is that Kubik probably wouldn't need prep to pull such a thing off.
Originally posted by King KandyFair point, but here's how I look at it...
I don't think hyperbole is the right word here, that's an exaggeration of something. Not something that's just totally wrong. If Kubik would lose to Exitar after a hard fought battle, but said Exitar was thousands of times greater, that's hyperbole. If he could beat him, but said Exitar was thousands of times stronger, that's just incorrect.
Kubik made a random statement about a Celestial's power being FAR greater than his own 'infinite' power. So if a no name Celestial has so much power that a universal reality warper like Kubik is absolutely nothing in comparison, then how much power would a 'higher-end' Celestial like Exitar have by proxy? Am I supposed to believe that Sue Storm was channeling unknown levels of infinite power when she pwned Exitar?
For instance, Hyperman was referred to as 'possibly the most powerful being in existence', even though he has NO feats to warrant such a claim. Am I to automatically place him in the upper echelons of the DC hierarchy just by that one, off-the-wall, statement? No way. Why? Because unproven statements are just that: unproven statements. If Celestials had done something.... Anything, to warrant Kubik's claim, then I'd have no problem with placing them on such a high pedestal... But to date, they haven't (in general.)
I guess my main point is: where do we draw the line between unproven statements and established on panel feats?
Originally posted by Galan007So because she was a rare example does this make her more powerful than Thor? No, just like if anyone used red solar radiation on Superman that doesn't make them any more powerful than Superman just the right set of powers to defeat him.
Fair point, but here's how I look at it...Kubik made a random statement about a Celestial's power being FAR greater than his own 'infinite' power. So if a no name Celestial has so much power that a universal reality warper like Kubik is absolutely nothing in comparison, then how much power would a 'higher-end' Celestial like Exitar have by proxy? Am I supposed to believe that Sue Storm was channeling unknown levels of infinite power when she pwned Exitar?
For instance, Hyperman was referred to as 'possibly the most powerful being in existence', even though he has NO feats to warrant such a claim. Am I to automatically place him in the upper echelons of the DC hierarchy just by that one, off-the-wall, statement? No way. Why? Because unproven statements are just that: unproven statements. If Celestials had done something.... Anything, to warrant Kubik's claim, then I'd have no problem with placing them on such a high pedestal... But to date, they haven't (in general.)
I guess my main point is: where do we draw the line between unproven statements and established on panel feats?
Exitar wins as it's been explained already that they are nothing to Celestials.
Originally posted by Galan007
Fair point, but here's how I look at it...Kubik made a random statement about a Celestial's power being FAR greater than his own 'infinite' power. So if a no name Celestial has so much power that a universal reality warper like Kubik is absolutely nothing in comparison, then how much power would a 'higher-end' Celestial like Exitar have by proxy? Am I supposed to believe that Sue Storm was channeling unknown levels of infinite power when she pwned Exitar?
For instance, Hyperman was referred to as 'possibly the most powerful being in existence', even though he has NO feats to warrant such a claim. Am I to automatically place him in the upper echelons of the DC hierarchy just by that one, off-the-wall, statement? No way. Why? Because unproven statements are just that: unproven statements. If Celestials had done something.... Anything, to warrant Kubik's claim, then I'd have no problem with placing them on such a high pedestal... But to date, they haven't (in general.)
I guess my main point is: where do we draw the line between unproven statements and established on panel feats?
Was the Kubik statement meant to serve as a ret-con statement of sorts, keeping in mind the changes for both the Beyonder and Molecule Man?
Originally posted by Johnny SorrowNothing was really 'retconned'. Kubik just made a comment pertaining to a Celestial's *supposed* power.
Was the Kubik statement meant to serve as a ret-con statement of sorts, keeping in mind the changes for both the Beyonder and Molecule Man?
...Plus, the events of F4 #319 (the one in which Kubik pwns a universe) were mentioned in the Celestial-wank-fest issue, as well.
Originally posted by Galan007
Fair point, but here's how I look at it...Kubik made a random statement about a Celestial's power being FAR greater than his own 'infinite' power. So if a no name Celestial has so much power that a universal reality warper like Kubik is absolutely nothing in comparison, then how much power would a 'higher-end' Celestial like Exitar have by proxy? Am I supposed to believe that Sue Storm was channeling unknown levels of infinite power when she pwned Exitar?
For instance, Hyperman was referred to as 'possibly the most powerful being in existence', even though he has NO feats to warrant such a claim. Am I to automatically place him in the upper echelons of the DC hierarchy just by that one, off-the-wall, statement? No way. Why? Because unproven statements are just that: unproven statements. If Celestials had done something.... Anything, to warrant Kubik's claim, then I'd have no problem with placing them on such a high pedestal... But to date, they haven't (in general.)
I guess my main point is: where do we draw the line between unproven statements and established on panel feats?
Originally posted by King KandySo if a no-name Celestial is FAR more powerful then a guy who can warp entire universes with the utmost of ease, then exactly what level of power are you placing them at? Multiversal?
Generally I trust statements given by a character that they directly pertain to, if they aren't boasts. There's no reason that Kubik should have been wrong, after all he would have been undervaluing himself to do so.
If so, do you truly think that one statement with absolutely no feats to back it up, warrants such a placement? Do you think that Celestials are equal to someone like Mxy, even though Mxy has feats, and all Celestials have are statements? Do you think Sentry did in fact stalemate Galactus?
Where do we draw the line?