Originally posted by Rage.Of.Olympus
Did you read the issue? Galactus was so weakened planet(s) wouldn't be able to satiate him so he feed on a Star instead which has much more energy.Clearly the Bio energy is just a formality at this point. Unless some side effects or such are introduced, Galactus is a mass murderer.
There's an alternate choice to feeding on populated planets apparently.
Galactus could only eat certain planets, and he needed special equipment to convert the energy into something he could metabolize originally. That made sense.
He feeds on planets that have the potential to support life (by extension, a populated planet obviously has that capability), so don't have any assumptions that he feeds on populated planets exclusively.
And it's absolutely false to think that he requires the machines to absorb the energy. The machines make consumption more efficient: with the elemental converter Galactus does not need to use his own energy to transmute the planet into consumable energy. It's like running 20 blocks to the restaurant when you're already fatigued from hunger. Why run when you can take a car or bus?
This whole distinction between stars and habitable planets seems to be a farce quite frankly.
The simple answer is that consumption of planets makes for a more compelling story as opposed to some having a semi-abstract being be even more detached from the reader by consuming stars instead of planets. Characters wouldn't interact with Galactus at all unless they had the capabililty to fly in extreme proximity to the Sun. How many people can do that on earth? Exactly. Boring story.
No-prize answer: Stars are fundamentally important to the formation of carbon, which all known life (or almost all known life) is comprised of. No stars, no carbon atoms, no carbon atoms, no life forms. The ramifications of eliminating a single planet are infinitely smaller than the ramifications of depleting a star to a white dwarf (what happens when stars burn out their fuel) which then transition into black holes.
I'm sure there's much more complexity than that but that's only what i recall from Astronomy class, taken over 10 years ago.
Now that's dealt with, Pak seems to be tieing into a few other HE stories, like DnA's Thor/Iron Man and HE's stint in X-Men.
I'm actually just as curious to see what HE is up to as I am looking forward to reading an SS tale.
Originally posted by Power Cosmic II
He feeds on planets that have the potential to support life (by extension, a populated planet obviously has that capability), so don't have any assumptions that he feeds on populated planets exclusively.
I don't have that assumption. I know he can choose to feed on planets that can potentially support life but he seems to feed on populated planets far more often from what I've seen.
Originally posted by Power Cosmic II
And it's absolutely false to think that he requires the machines to absorb the energy. The machines make consumption more efficient: with the elemental converter Galactus does not need to use his own energy to transmute the planet into consumable energy. It's like running 20 blocks to the restaurant when you're already fatigued from hunger. Why run when you can take a car or bus?
I'm pretty sure that Galactus not needing equipment was something introduced later on. Possibly the Surfer's run? I forget.
Originally posted by Power Cosmic II
This whole distinction between stars and habitable planets seems to be a farce quite frankly.The simple answer is that consumption of planets makes for a more compelling story as opposed to some having a semi-abstract being be even more detached from the reader by consuming stars instead of planets. Characters wouldn't interact with Galactus at all unless they had the capabililty to fly in extreme proximity to the Sun. How many people can do that on earth? Exactly. Boring story.
I know it makes a boring story, but showing that he can feed on Stars (I believe only a vague reference was made to in Secret Wars in the past) just detracts from the character. It shows that he does have a choice. He can choose to feed on Stars. They are plentiful and possess far more energy.
Instead of killing a planet full of populated beings, he could stop by some Star with no life around it.
I think it's just a bad step for the character. With this development, I'd classify him as a genocidal villain.
Originally posted by Power Cosmic II
No-prize answer: Stars are fundamentally important to the formation of carbon, which all known life (or almost all known life) is comprised of. No stars, no carbon atoms, no carbon atoms, no life forms. The ramifications of eliminating a single planet are infinitely smaller than the ramifications of depleting a star to a white dwarf (what happens when stars burn out their fuel) which then transition into black holes.
He doesn't have to deplete the Stars of their fuels completely. He was severely weakened and planets wouldn't satiate him, so he drained our Sun of the energy he needed. Granted, it took a billion years from the Sun's life, but it didn't drain it completely. Not even close.
Stopping by some Red Giant every now and then, taking a few years of it's fuel would save a lot of lives.
You can't really attribute Galactus to be good or evil. That's like saying a lion is evil because he hunts and eats baby deer. Organisms consuming other organisms is a part of nature, just like how Galactus is a force of nature in Marvel. The only difference between Galactus and the lion is that Galactus does it on a planetary scale. He eats planets out of necessity, just like the lion eats the deer out of necessity. Killing for food is part of their nature. You shouldn't attribute morality to something inherent in nature, doing so would commit a naturalistic fallacy.
Do you feel bad whenever you eat an apple? Most foods like apples have millions (perhaps billions) of bacteria life on it. Before we eat something like an apple we clean it, actively committing "genocide" on all that bacteria life before we consume the apple. I doubt people feel bad when they do that, and this probably goes the same for Galactus when he eats a planet.
But the interesting thing about Galactus is he use to be mortal, and from time to time his mortal nature (e.g. empathy, morality, emotions etc) come out, like in Godhunter. So I find that interesting whenever something like that happens.
This Pak seems like an awful writer judging by what many say on this thread.
I always thought Galactus was a cosmic being with virtually unlimited powers.
This writer has made him lose to lots of characters?
If Galactus is million times more powerful than Silver Surfer and Galactus gets beat by characters at Silver Surfer level, where does that put Silver Surfer at? Cyclops level?
Now I know what PIS stands for (plot induced stupidity), I see it is rampant and this Pak seems one of main ones responsible.
Silver Surfer #3
EVOLUTION REVELATION! The Silver Surfer has always served the greater good, but with Galactus' world-eating power at his fingertips, the High Evolutionary has his own ideas about the cosmic balance.
A humbled Surfer will have to choose sides, and if he chooses poorly, the Earth is lost! The High Evolutionary's grand design is revealed in the continuation of the greatest cosmic tale ever told right here at home!