PG Thor vs PG Champion

Originally posted by Sundipped
^
I wonder how the shield/shields would've fared against Tyrant. He didn't use any against him.

@Carver
Some people (not me) deny that he was amped using that Orb. I don't see how that's possible seeing has how the entire Cosmic Powers arc was about Thanos seeking out ways to defeat Tyrant (finding Terrax, Terrax telling him about the Orbs, Thanos taking an Orb, etc...), so they'll just say he wasn't amped.

Originally posted by zopzop
First of all, you need to calm the phuck down.
Second of all, PG Thor breaking them can be chalked up to PIS. It's not the first time Thor has done shit he has no business doing. As an example, in Thor 300, three elite skyfathers combined blast couldn't scratch a Celestial, yet Thor was breaking pieces off their armor and was conscious and alive after multiple blasts from Celestials. Then there's him breaking through Exitar's outer shell with a Mjolnir strike, yet 3 elite skyfathers couldn't even scratch Arishem.

I still don't really see a shield. Again, the art is subjective. But, the fact that people are split on it is evidence for: (1) the writer never intending a shield, and people's pattern seeking brains are overactive; or (2) if there is a shield, the artist did a terrible job. I think the former is more likely.

Does this mean I think Thanos is an idiot for not using a shield against Odin? No, of course not. I'm sure there are numerous instances in comics where a character "forgets" to use his powers, even when its the most logical thing to use in that situation. This is the fault of the writer who opted not to have the character use that power. There's probably a million reasons why the writer didn't, maybe they forgot, lacked time, or its just plain bad writing. For example, Thor recently was knocked down by blasters in Avengers Assemble. Not once did he even attempt to try to block or absorb the blasts with his mjolnir. Apparently Thor forgot he could absorb energy with his hammer. Is Thor stupid? Nah, its Bendis being a crappy writer in that instance. But this is expected, because writers are humans, and hence fallible, and so are our pattern seeking brains.

I also think Thanos' personal shields can be just as powerful as his tech based shields. For example, when Thanos was blasted by the Omega (Galactus clone), he said the only reason he tanked it was because of his personal shields (and armour). Omega was said to be twice as powerful as Galactus.

Originally posted by vince_slice
I still don't really see a shield. Again, the art is subjective. But, the fact that people are split on it is evidence for: (1) the writer never intending a shield, and people's pattern seeking brains are overactive; or (2) if there is a shield, the artist did a terrible job. I think the former is more likely.

Does this mean I think Thanos is an idiot for not using a shield against Odin? No, of course not. I'm sure there are numerous instances in comics where a character "forgets" to use his powers, even when its the most logical thing to use in that situation. This is the fault of the writer who opted not to have the character use that power. There's probably a million reasons why the writer didn't, maybe they forgot, lacked time, or its just plain bad writing. For example, Thor recently was knocked down by blasters in Avengers Assemble. Not once did he even attempt to try to block or absorb the blasts with his mjolnir. Apparently Thor forgot he could absorb energy with his hammer. Is Thor stupid? Nah, its Bendis being a crappy writer in that instance. But this is expected, because writers are humans, and hence fallible, and so are our pattern seeking brains.

I also think Thanos' personal shields can be just as powerful as his tech based shields. For example, when Thanos was blasted by the Omega (Galactus clone), he said the only reason he tanked it was because of his personal shields (and armour). Omega was said to be twice as powerful as Galactus.

I agree, there is more evidence on the side of no shield than a shield. The only SHAKY eveidence for a shield is.. Art, that like you say, is clearl subjective. That isn't much in the way of proof... subjective art.. No. Then the only other proof... Thanos is smart.. he would bring shields.. Ummm that's your proof.. Sorry, people don't use all their powers and abilities all the time... Doesn't mean we make them do something the artist never attended because we think it would be the prudent thing to do. No mention of a shield... no shield drawn or alluded to.. no mention of a shield breaking.. this never ever being drawn or shown this way for Thanos... The issue just prior a shield was drawn.. Point more to no shield.

One correction though... Against Omega, he did use tech shields... In fact, he mentions needing three shields just to tank that blast from Omega. Two might be tech and one personal.. or however you want to split it.. but there were three.

Originally posted by ODG
[B]Except when PG Thor broke them, which showed that the shielding was barely a foot beyond his outstretched hand.

Good job completely forgetting that the spherical splashing silhouette was circular as well. Need me to buy you one of those shape/block sets so you can learn your shapes?

Originally posted by Nihilist
It was at least a foot to two away from his body unlike the few inches youre claiming it was against Odin. You do realise Thanos was holding that sheild, did you see him holding one against Odin?

The forcefield against Drax covered him 360 degrees and was visable, Odin blast flowed directly round his arms and over his head after hitting his torso..plus the forcefield was a few feet away against Drax

And the forcefield against PG Thor did not cover him 360 degrees globe. You can keep trying to move the goalposts, but you're losing sight of what you're originally arguing while trying to gloss over the facts we do agree on: Thanos' shields have been invisible, Thanos' shields have not always been a perfect globe, Thanos' shields have extended just beyond his body. I see no reason to exclude the possibility that here: his shields are invisible, are not a perfect globe and extend just beyond his body.

And that's basically been the core of the issue here. This abject and unjustifiable refusal to even consider that possibility. As made evident by the last several pages, that behavior ends up causing debate to go circular. You don't want to consider the possibility and how it makes sense, much less arising on-panel, constructive discourse is impossible. You just refuse it. /shrug

No, the argument is and always has been...

1. There is no mention of a shield or even a shield being alluded to

2. There is no shield drawn at all and by MANY posters view the claim of a shield is ambigous

3. EVERY single time Thanos has had an invisible shield.. it has ALWAYS been mentioned. Not one time in his entire history has it not been mentioned an invisible.

4. In the prior comic.. thanos had a shield drawn for all to see and had it broken for all to see. For consistency purposes.. how much sense does it make for the next artist to draw a shield in a similiar way.. it doesn't make sense, or at least, not as much sense for him to do that.

Now the theory for a shield

1. A very unclear drawing of what could be a shield.. certainly not a clear shield as many have said it's not clear at all.

and lastly

2. Thanos is smart.. he wouldn't brought a shield.

The facts in evidence and logic aren't even really that close here.

Originally posted by KuRuPT Thanosi
No, the argument is and always has been...

1. There is no mention of a shield or even a shield being alluded to

2. There is no shield drawn at all and by MANY posters view the claim of a shield is ambigous

3. EVERY single time Thanos has had an invisible shield.. it has ALWAYS been mentioned. Not one time in his entire history has it not been mentioned an invisible.

4. In the prior comic.. thanos had a shield drawn for all to see and had it broken for all to see. For consistency purposes.. how much sense does it make for the next artist to draw a shield in a similiar way.. it doesn't make sense, or at least, not as much sense for him to do that.

Now the theory for a shield

1. A very unclear rather obvious drawing of what could be a shield.. certainly not a clear shield as many have said it's not clear at all.

and lastly

2. Thanos is smart.. he wouldn't brought a shield.

Originally posted by KuRuPT Thanosi
The facts in evidence and logic aren't even really that close here.

Originally posted by ODG
I did not claim it was only a few inches away from his body against Odin. It's why I've been mocking you with the idea that he suddenly grew 33DDD breasts. The blast extends well beyond his chest. At least a whole foot: http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/263/warlock2520.jpg/

And the forcefield against PG Thor did not cover him 360 degrees globe.

You can keep trying to move the goalposts, but you're losing sight of what you're originally arguing while trying to gloss over the facts we do agree on: Thanos' shields have been invisible, Thanos' shields have not always been a perfect globe, Thanos' shields have extended just beyond his body. I see no reason to exclude the possibility that here: his shields are invisible, are not a perfect globe and extend just beyond his body.

And that's basically been the core of the issue here. This abject and unjustifiable refusal to even consider that possibility. As made evident by the last several pages, that behavior ends up causing debate to go circular. You don't want to consider the possibility and how it makes sense, much less arising on-panel, constructive discourse is impossible. You just refuse it. /shrug

The simple facts are EVERY time Thanos has used a sheild it has been explained by showing it on panel(Champion, Drax,PG Thor) or called upon (Galactus)or even explained after the event (Omega) yet you want to make up the claim he used one with no proof to back it up 😂

Originally posted by Nihilist
Bwhaha the blast still flows directly round his arms and directly over his head, you must be blind if you think the blast stops a foot away..hell you even said the one held at arms length against Thor was a foot away, they were nothing like the same distance.

Originally posted by Nihilist
Who said it was? you can still tell that sheild covers a far larger area than the fake one he supposedly used against Odin

Originally posted by Nihilist
Ive said throughtout that his sheilds have all ways been circular in nature. You tried to use the forcefield as proof that he used one against Odin, did you see Thanos holding one?

lol and your behavior is not the same, please spare me your double standards.

The simple facts are EVERY time Thanos has used a sheild it has been explained by showing it on panel(Champion, Drax,PG Thor) or called upon (Galactus)or even explained after the event (Omega) yet you want to make up the claim he used one with no proof to back it up 😂

I don't see where I am pretending that three on-panel characteristics we've seen with Thanos' shields cannot possibly be present here at the same time. You don't want to consider the possibility and how it makes sense, much less arising on-panel, constructive discourse is impossible. You just refuse it. And it's obvious (and rather pitiful) why.

Originally posted by ODG
Fixed for accuracy. Nobody cares about your false absolutist logic. Trying to pretend that Thanos is not using invisible shields here unaccompanied by narration -- because this in no way cannot possibly be the first time????????? -- isn't argumentation. That's just you absurdly assuming your conclusion: It hasn't happened exactly like this before, it cannot be happening for the first time here. Funny stuff.

Actually, that is EXACTLY what we use for burden of proof in court or in any such evidentiary situation. This is how we look at comic book and characters. We see how a character is portrayed and that is THE basis for determining a great number of things. When Thor has been shown to not need his hammer to fly.. while there a fewer instances of him needing his hammer to fly.. If we see a picture of Thor flying.. but the end of his arm where his hammer is..is missing from the artistic depiciton.. Do we go with.. the less used.. Thor needs his hammer to fly and thus even though we can't see it.. it must be there. Or do we go with what has been shown more in comics... Whether it's there or not.. he doesn't need it to fly.

Let me ask you this... Have a variety of people in this very thread.. said.. the artwork isn't clear at all.. There is a great deal in ambiguity in that picture.. it's not a clear cut shield. Do you agree it's not clear cut?

Originally posted by KuRuPT Thanosi
Actually, that is EXACTLY what we use for burden of proof in court or in any such evidentiary situation. This is how we look at comic book and characters. We see how a character is portrayed and that is THE basis for determining a great number of things. When Thor has been shown to not need his hammer to fly.. while there a fewer instances of him needing his hammer to fly.. If we see a picture of Thor flying.. but the end of his arm where his hammer is..is missing from the artistic depiciton.. Do we go with.. the less used.. Thor needs his hammer to fly and thus even though we can't see it.. it must be there. Or do we go with what has been shown more in comics... Whether it's there or not.. he doesn't need it to fly.

Let me ask you this... Have a variety of people in this very thread.. said.. the artwork isn't clear at all.. There is a great deal in ambiguity in that picture.. it's not a clear cut shield. Do you agree it's not clear cut?

Clear enough for me. Not clear enough for you. Somehow that makes you upset. You can't just leave it at that. Instead you insist on false absolutes and red herrings to deflect from this. I cannot deconstruct your valid personal opinion that you don't think it's clear enough. That's just your honest point of view. But you keep presenting me fallacious reasoning, I'll happily keep deconstructing it.

Originally posted by ODG
Right. Clear portrayal of an elliptical splashing silhouette away from Thanos' chest. Thor flying has nothing to do with that.

Clear enough for me. Not clear enough for you. Somehow that makes you upset. You can't just leave it at that. Instead you insist on false absolutes and red herrings to deflect from this. I cannot deconstruct your valid personal opinion that you don't think it's clear enough. That's just your honest point of view. But you keep presenting me fallacious reasoning, I'll happily keep deconstructing it.

Am I the only one who doesn't think it's clear at all? Or are there many others who have expressed the same thing? Just the fact that there are others.. doesn't that, by default, make it not clear? Yet this is your entire evidence.. something with clear ambiguity... and you think that is good.. sorry I don't man. Deconstruct.. you mean like how I'm making it clear you're basing your whole judgment on something, that by default, ISN'T clear. In court, does a witness go, well it kinda looked like the guy.. and the judge or jury go.. yup that is good enough for me.. No. By default your whole case rest on something with clear ambiguity. That isn't a very strong case.. come on man.

Originally posted by KuRuPT Thanosi
Am I the only one who doesn't think it's clear at all? Or are there many others who have expressed the same thing? Just the fact that there are others.. doesn't that, by default, make it not clear? Yet this is your entire evidence.. something with clear ambiguity... and you think that is good.. sorry I don't man. Deconstruct.. you mean like how I'm making it clear you're basing your whole judgment on something, that by default, ISN'T clear. In court, does a witness go, well it kinda looked like the guy.. and the judge or jury go.. yup that is good enough for me.. No. By default your whole case rest on something with clear ambiguity. That isn't a very strong case.. come on man.

You're opinion isn't subjective? It's very much subjective is it not? So the fallacies you've used to accompany your subjective view that I've deconstructed are much the same. Your red herrings.. your ad hominem.. your appeals to audience which have used are just the same. Pot meet kettle.

Originally posted by KuRuPT Thanosi
You're opinion isn't subjective? It's very much subjective is it not? So the fallacies you've used to accompany your subjective view that I've deconstructed are much the same. Your red herrings.. your ad hominem.. your appeals to audience which have used are just the same. Pot meet kettle.

If you don't know what logical fallacies are, go read a book. I'm not your tutor. I'm just the guy who keeps pointing them out. That's not hurting your point of view that the scene is unclear, it just completely defuses your criticism of my point of view. And if you can't follow along, best to shut up and not pretend that you are.

Do you forget your words? Should I go back and illustrate all your fallacies in this very thread... Multiple Ad Hominem Fallacies... Multiple appeal to audience fallacies... Multiple Red Herring and missing the point. AND?? Why do you insist on claiming you're not doing something you very clear are. Acting like you're not and acting like you're the only one who has broken down arguments in laughable at best. I does amuse me though when I see you accuse me of something you also do..

Originally posted by KuRuPT Thanosi
Do you forget your words? Should I go back and illustrate all your fallacies in this very thread... Multiple Ad Hominem Fallacies... Multiple appeal to audience fallacies... Multiple Red Herring and missing the point. AND?? Why do you insist on claiming you're not doing something you very clear are. Acting like you're not and acting like you're the only one who has broken down arguments in laughable at best. I does amuse me though when I see you accuse me of something you also do..

And all this infantile textbook projection has done is simply revealed that you've got nothing left in the can. Make a better argument. Your trolling and red herrings don't qualify.

i love this thread. 😂 i mean it's all old sh!t that has been discussed ad nauseum before, but still, this is some good stuff.... never ceases to amaze me how people can look at exactly the same picture and see something so completely and utterly different. at this point it seems pretty clear neither side is going to change their opinions though. i'd have liked to see a poll on the question of whether or not thanos has a shield against that initial blast. be funny to ask 100 people who are totally unfamilar with thanos or even comics if it looks to THEM like there is a shield up. my guess would be an overwhelming majority would say yes. history aside, sometimes if it looks and quacks like a duck...

Originally posted by leonidas
i love this thread. 😂 i mean it's all old sh!t that has been discussed ad nauseum before, but still, this is some good stuff.... never ceases to amaze me how people can look at exactly the same picture and see something so completely and utterly different. at this point it seems pretty clear neither side is going to change their opinions though. i'd have liked to see a poll on the question of whether or not thanos has a shield against that initial blast. be funny to ask 100 people who are totally unfamilar with thanos or even comics if it looks to THEM like there is a shield up. my guess would be an overwhelming majority would say yes. history aside, sometimes if it looks and quacks like a duck...

Someone should make a poll.. Show the whole fight as well.
Shield or no shield..??