Originally posted by Galan007
If you really reported him, that's pretty dumb.Thanos would only survive by virtue of regenerating--however, he would certainly not be able to endure the blast without sustaining *initial* damage (and a LOT of it.) So in that sense, I also agree that Galactus' durability>Thanos'.
Exactly like the Elders vs Galactus. He atomized them and then ate them yet they didn't die. They were fully conscious through it all and were killing him from the inside once they started reforming.
Even atomized they were "alive" and conscious until their bodies reconstructed themselves inside Galactus.
Same thing would happen to Thanos. He'd probably be atomized but he'd still be fully aware of what was happening since he can't die, then he'd reform. I consider that surviving the blast.
Galactus was either Dead or comatosed and needed Franklin to revive him.
Originally posted by PillarofOsiris
Thanos isn't more durable than Galactus who ate one planet, nevermind 4.
The OP didn't say who'd tank the blast unharmed, the OP said who'd survive the blast. Thanos would definitely survive that blast.
Originally posted by Galan007How is it? as this is all he does is troll anything Thanos related. After all the point of this thread is who survives not who dies, thus proving my point.
[B]If you really reported him, that's pretty dumb.
Thanos would only survive by virtue of regenerating--however, he would certainly not be able to endure the blast without sustaining *initial* damage (and a LOT of it.) So in that sense, I also agree that Galactus' durability>Thanos'.Seeing as he survived a blast that can be easily argued as great or greater, as its effect was felt light years away. So in that instance his durability may have written greater than what Galactus durability was when he took that blast.
If you consider what blasts Galactus has stood up to from just feeding on one planet, him feeding on 4 and going down like that is just wrong