Originally posted by CortSether
Living Tribunal.And also, Mandrakk really can't do jack squat in battles against Marvel characters unless they took place in DCU, because that whole story eating garbage wouldn't work in Marvel territory or anywhere outside of DC for that matter.
Originally posted by abhilegendThat's only dc characters. His powers are only tied into their universe not marvel's.
So by that rule, LT's power would do squat against anyone outside MU. We've even seen something like that when IG was ineffectual in DC. While every fictional character has a history to eat for mandrakk.
Originally posted by Jynocidus
there are no levels. you are either omnipotent or you are not. hence why I refer to DC's abstract hierarchy as atrocious.omnipotent: adjective
1.
almighty or infinite in power, as God.
2.
having very great or unlimited authority or power.^there's a definition for you.
you can't be a little less omnipotent than someone else. if you are limited in power in any way then the person who has more power than you is obviously stronger and more significant.
Wait, so in your very own post, you agree that there are two definitions of omnipotence, one of which is that it means having very great OR unlimited power.
And then in the next sentence, argue that someone CAN'T be a little less omnipotent?
Why not, especially if you take the second definition, i.e. being omnipotent means having very great power? Because if you use this definition, then yes, you can have two omnipotent beings, as they both have very great power.
And to be honest, I do actually get what you're trying to say, about necessity etc. One of LT's aspects is that he represents Necessity, therefore if anyone (either DC, Marvel, Image, Dark Horse, the Twilight series, Back to the Future, Dr Who, whatever) has to do SOMETHING as necessitated by plot, therefore, it is because the LT has made it so, am I reading you right?
Originally posted by DarkSaint85Yes that is his argument
Wait, so in your very own post, you agree that there are two definitions of omnipotence, one of which is that it means having very great [b]OR unlimited power.And then in the next sentence, argue that someone CAN'T be a little less omnipotent?
Why not, especially if you take the second definition, i.e. being omnipotent means having very great power? Because if you use this definition, then yes, you can have two omnipotent beings, as they both have very great power.
And to be honest, I do actually get what you're trying to say, about necessity etc. One of LT's aspects is that he represents Necessity, therefore if anyone (either DC, Marvel, Image, Dark Horse, the Twilight series, Back to the Future, Dr Who, whatever) has to do SOMETHING as necessitated by plot, therefore, it is because the LT has made it so, am I reading you right? [/B]
Originally posted by iceman24567
Yes that is his argument
If so, yeah, I can see why he argues the way he does, and I can also see why Quanchi likes it and supports it - its very logical, and it DOES make sense, if you follow his reasoning.
It all hinges on titles and POSSIBLE hyperbole, however. Much like how you can have various Hells and Gods in comics (so you have Hades, and Hela, and Anubis and etc etc?), necessity in one universe does (or may) not neccesarily mean necessity in another.
Originally posted by DarkSaint85
Wait, so in your very own post, you agree that there are two definitions of omnipotence, one of which is that it means having very great [b]OR unlimited power.And then in the next sentence, argue that someone CAN'T be a little less omnipotent?
Why not, especially if you take the second definition, i.e. being omnipotent means having very great power? Because if you use this definition, then yes, you can have two omnipotent beings, as they both have very great power.
And to be honest, I do actually get what you're trying to say, about necessity etc. One of LT's aspects is that he represents Necessity, therefore if anyone (either DC, Marvel, Image, Dark Horse, the Twilight series, Back to the Future, Dr Who, whatever) has to do SOMETHING as necessitated by plot, therefore, it is because the LT has made it so, am I reading you right? [/B]
in my opinion...the definitions I gave, represent the same thing. it's a different wording of the same definition.
go ahead and take the second definition. LT has the -greatest- power that isn't gods representation, the omnipotent (toaa). LT however, isn't omnipotent, i've never argued that, I steer more towards the "nigh omnipotence" that is made clear in bios and stuff along with him being the embodiment of necessity, equity, and vengeance. It's still more significant and therefore more powerful and capable than PM. He is more omnipotent, and has greater power than PM, Presence, and the list goes on.
yeah, i'd say that's relevant to my argument
Originally posted by carver9I have both issues its mostly hyperbole and narration much like the LT's best feats buts there plain as day the whole DC continuity is crying out to Superman he uses the ultimate weapon to stop the evil that is devouring everything. He won't stop there from what i understand Mandrakk was going to eat everything.
Galan, do you have any fts for the armor that you can post?