Originally posted by carver9
Lol...Prime moving planets at light speed is a (statement)...hypocrite.
Show me a Herald TANKING a supernova without a scratch and flying out of it unscathed. Scans.
Black Holes in comics isn't that devistating. Everyone and their grandmoma has survived them. Hell, a high meta like Havok can create black holes. Again, show me a Herald TANKING a supernova and flying out of it at 100 times the speed of light AFTER containing it to the point that it turned into a star. Scans.
Black holes are black holes in comics. They can do the same thing they can do in reality. That means they can devour solar systems, thousand of stars, etc.
I didn't say a herald tanked a supernova without a scratch. This doesn't even address my argument at all.
Originally posted by h1a8Does the fictional world of comics always abide by real world rules/concepts/logic. No.
Yet they are not. An abstract can't be touched physically. Otherwise they wouldn't be abstract now would they?
Galactus, Tenebrous, Aegis, and the Celestials were referred to as abstracts in Thanos Imperative-- so in the fictional world of Marvel, that's exactly what they're classified as. Not debatable.
Originally posted by Horrificus
Have you ever actually read one of these, so called, "books of the comic"?Quasar and Anomaly
Yes I have. The scan doesn't prove anything. An abstract can't be touched physically or else they are not abstract. Calling a black object yellow in a comic doesn't make it black.
Originally posted by Mindset
Yes they can.
They can't and still be called abstract.
Originally posted by DarkSaint85
They can manifest a physical form.
Then they wouldn't be abstract then, now would they? Unless the physical form is not really them but just an respresentation of them?
Originally posted by Galan007I don't care what they were referred to. An abstract being is well...abstract. Unless there is a different definition of the word then we are arguing semantics.
Does the fictional world of comics always abide by real world rules/concepts/logic. No.Galactus, Tenebrous, Aegis, and the Celestials were referred to as abstracts in Thanos Imperative-- so in the fictional world of Marvel, that's exactly what they're classified as. Not debatable.
Bottom line
SBP>>>>>>Plutonian by feats.
Possibly Plutonian/Doom with 24hr prep>>>>>>SBP
But Plutonian/Doom wouldn't gnat dwarf SBP, especially when he has no feats that suggest that. Hell Irredeemable doesn't even give what limit he can reach at his potential. We simply don't know. Speculation is not proof.
Originally posted by psycho gundam
that same comic cover is from quasar actually going to the place where abstracts get bodies made for them, and him getting attacked by the concept of anomaly because mortals shouldn't be there
Well the cover has Quasar touching and holding anomaly. So in that scene anomaly isn't abstract but physical. Now whether a being can turn abstract (physically untouchable) and non abstract at will is a different thing altogether.
Originally posted by DarkSaint85
Which character would you call an abstract, then, H1? And we will go from there.For example, you in your post simultaneously called the Phoenix Force an energy being and a physical being....
Energy is physical.
Laser light is energy, yet can be blocked by material.
Any character who at the time is indeed abstract in nature.
A physical body cannot be abstract. So if an abstract being has one then their body isn't them at all but rather a representation of them (meaning, destroying their body does absolutely nothing to them).
Originally posted by h1a8
No I wasn't.Saying I was proven wrong doesn't mean I was. You should know better logic than that. Remember calling a black object yellow doesn't make it yellow (even in a comic).
Yes you were.
No, but being proved wrong does, and you were. I do, that's why I'm telling you. That has nothing to do with anything. Being abstract is measure din power. Not being glowy. Galactus in his higher showings is an abstract, despite being able to be touched. I'd like to know where you came up with the idea that abstract means something else on here.
Originally posted by Damborgson
Yes you were.No, but being proved wrong does, and you were. I do, that's why I'm telling you. That has nothing to do with anything. Being abstract is measure din power. Not being glowy. Galactus in his higher showings is an abstract, despite being able to be touched. I'd like to know where you came up with the idea that abstract means something else on here.
From the dictionary.
ab·stract (b-strkt, bstrkt)
adj.
1. Considered apart from concrete existence: an abstract concept.
2. Not applied or practical; theoretical
The problem with hanging rigidly to your definitons, h1, is that you are trying to apply real world logic and definitions to comics.
I might as well post this:
http://img40.imageshack.us/img40/6416/plutonian.jpg
And say, well you know what? Plutonian has limitless strength and immeasurable speed. Whereas SBP still has limits, so he is like a gnat (if I look it up, limitless and immeasurable are much higher than any limits SBP may have).
Originally posted by h1a8
From the dictionary.ab·stract (b-strkt, bstrkt)
adj.
1. Considered apart from concrete existence: an abstract concept.
2. Not applied or practical; theoretical
That's an adjective. 😐 doesn't fit in with what's being discussed.
and you're applying real world definitions to planet eating space gods who are considered abstract in power. Sit on it a while.
