Originally posted by Astner
Technically the Hunger also survived,but no. Nothing indicates that this was beyond planetary. Just because the Hunger feeds on realities doesn't mean that he has to be particularly durable.
I never said Hunger didn't survive, I said "Take out", which he was. He was defeated.
But this goes back to what I was saying. Galactus is beyond planetary all the time. Whether he destroys a planet or not, that's what he is. It doesn't have to be under the same writer or anything. That's simply his average. If Hunger is tanking a pissed off Galactus' power, then he is tanking beyond planetary power.
Yet, he seemed the most durable out of him and Galactus, and he got way more ****ed up.
In fact the scan I presented had him saying that he was backed up by an entire reality at the time and that's why Galactus couldn't do anything. Which plays a lot into durability.
Whether he was universal in durability or not, it doesn't matter. The implication was that he was, but at the very least we know he had a large degree of durability. And he got shitting on by that explosion.
But anyway, the entire time more and more of the Hunger was pouring into reality, so he could be perceived as getting more durable as time went on. Now while that may take away from him being "universal", he was still more powerful than a slightly weakened Galactus by a sizable degree. Even moreso as time went on.
Also, Thanos has always been beyond or at planetary as evidenced by Starlin in his first appearance. If the Hunger is supremely above a vastly more powerful Thanos, then we should still limit him to planetary?
Hell, I know you don't like it, but under a different writer even the herald Nova is a star destroyer. If she's capable of that, then why should Galactus not be above that under another? And why should a being above Galactus be below that? Averages.
Which on that note going back to earlier arguments, the same writer who had Nova destroy a star had Galactus fight In-Betweener in a planetoid level fight. Nova > Galactus/In-Betweener following a large part of your debate.
Originally posted by Astner
It was a planetary explosion with no hints of it being anything greater than it was.
Then if that's all it was, then it's a simple low showing. Not that hard.
There's ways to go about this.
Either it was a low showing.
You can attempt to explain it
Or you can use it to somehow say Thanos' feat is pis, even though under the same writer many many beings have survived planetary level destruction.
Hell, even in Thanos' first appearance, one of the weakest Draxes there is survived the planet blowing up. Drax > Omega according to you trying to shove this down Thanos' feathole.
Or you can use the feats without trying to use a contradiction in there. IE a vastly more durable being than Thanos got killed by an explosion, which should speak of the power already.
Originally posted by Astner
Now you're lying.There is no mention of Omega's ship. Genis-Vell asks "How powerful is Omega?" and Thanos replies "Probably twice as powerful as Galactus."
That's all there is to it.
Because he was on his ship the entire time his power was being discussed. All of those "dwarfing Galactus" statements are from a time when he was on his ship.
How am I lying here? Is there untruth to this statement? Was he ever said to dwarf Galactus when he was not on his ship?
Not to mention all the limitations being placed on him in statements immediately after he got separated.
"Even without his ship he possesses incredible power"
"He's got retarded reactions"
"No sense of smell"
"He can't absorb anything because he's stupid"
Etc. The implication being that the giant mechanical ship that he was directly connected to that was glowing with energy kept his power level up.
Originally posted by Astner
Keep in mind that this was also Thanos' strategy against Galactus in the Thanos series we've been discussing; destroy the ship and blow up the planet, which proved to be very effective every time.
What?
Thanos destroyed the ship in an attempt to cut Hunger off from the bulk of his being. It had nothing to do with Galactus. Not to mention we've seen Galactus eat planets many times without his craft.
Omega simply wasn't capable apparently of funneling that power into his being safely. But the "Biting off more than he can chew" implies he actually did try to absorb it. He just couldn't actually functionally absorb it because he was retarded.
Which is where the "Omega was poisoned" theory comes into play that I've no doubts you've seen many times. Whether that was the case or not it had some merit if you assume Omega actually did try to absorb the kablooey. He basically tried to eat power he has no way of actually digesting. He basically drank a bunch of bleach.
If that's the way you want to go with it of course.
Originally posted by Astner
Read the scan.The armada did not blow up the planet. What the armada did was "sparking a massive chain reaction within its (the planet's) depths," which then lead to the destruction of the planet.
But even if the armada blew up the planet, it's still the destruction of a planet! You don't get to make claims like 'it was probably a condensed galaxy-buster,' unless you have a basis for that claim.
Irrelevant distinction.
All I'm saying is the Armada's laser weapons presumably have to go somewhere. If that energy contributes to the coming explosion then you have another factor. Simple really.
I'm not saying it was a condensed galaxy buster though. I'm saying it was a once in a lifetime plot device explosion that was enough to kill him. It was so focused in that area that he just couldn't deal with it.
I'm saying that a planet that is essentially a giant bomb is something different than a normal planet. I'm saying that there's no placement for this. It's a one off explosion that will never be replicated or have a proper placement of where it ranks.
Which is if you just look at it as a simple blast, and assume Omega didn't try to absorb it. Like I said, factors.
Originally posted by Astner
I'm not making the argument that Thanos shouldn't be able to survive a planetary explosion, especially battle-ready with his shields up.And I'll admit that the scenes of Omega and Galactus dying and barely surviving, respectively, are low end-portrayals and should not be used as arguments against Galactus' durability in versus forums.
The argument I'm making is that it makes no sense to interpret the scene from the Infinity Abyss in the way that Thanos survived a black hole based on the execution of the scene as well as the context of the story.
But Thanos surviving a planetary explosion plays a large part in the discussion of the feat. If we follow only what you say, then you're using a feat Thanos is more than capable of surviving rather effortlessly to try and downplay Thanos' interaction with the black hole. That simply does not work. You can't be under the assumption that Thanos can survive easily the thing you're using from a way more durable being than Thanos, and actually use that downplay a completely different feat.
It loses a lot of it's momentum. And it loses more when you say it's a low feat.
But if they're low end feats that shouldn't be usable, then why are they being used at all to try and lower Thanos? Among other things, Thanos didn't acquire low feats in that series. Why is an admitted low end portrayal to another character relevant to him? Galactus and Omega could have been KO'ed by beer bottles in that series and it still isn't directly applicable to what Thanos can accomplish.
And if it does directly interfere with your enjoyment of it, then all it would simply be is a low end high end sort of scenario. Thanos is presented high end, Omega is presented low end. It doesn't get to directly take away from a feat even in the worst case scenario.
But we will get to your "as well as" a little later. I believe I've already previously answered that, and really there's nothing to answer. As much as you try, the evidence is plainly presented in full in that scene. Black hole opens, black hole closes, Thanos is damaged. Open and shut case really. But again, we will get to it.
Originally posted by Astner
In fact. There is another scene, in Infinity Abyss, where Thanos only survives one of Omega's assaults that went through all three of his shields and his armor despite the fact that the size of the crater is about the size of a house.I wouldn't use this as an argument against Thanos' durability either, but at least it provides story context.
But this is like I said earlier, a pure example of collateral damage not matching up to the actual power displayed. Are we under the understanding that a larger area presents more power being displayed or something?
Should we assumed that if a being as durable as something slightly larger than that was hit with an attack he wouldn't be instantly vaporized?
If say a being with the durability of a mansion was hit by that blast, would he survive? But you could argue that materials and that... if a being as durable as a mansion made of concrete (surely that's more durable than the ground surrounding no?) was hit by that blast would he survive?
No? Then why is the area of effect relevant here?
The blast almost killed Thanos. That's more than a house lot level of power being displayed.
