I find it really hard to believe that any non-retarded, not mentally damaged writer, would even imply it is not beyond retardation to think ****ing cybernetic jaw grants Force powers, let alone fugging Nadd level, LMAO.
It is obviously a rhetorical question directed towards the reader, but who with any kind of knowledge and sense would write a rhetorical question about absolute, infinite retardation?
Imagine somebody writing a RPG book about starships and putting shit like this:
"Was it the fact that Imperial-class Star Destroyer was painted white made it far superior to Venator-class Star Destroyer, or is it too simple of an explanation?"
Did it provide him with powers far greater than even Exar Kun or Freedon Nadd, or was cybernetic enhancement too simple an explanation?
Feels like what the writer is asking is: was it the mask that gave Malak powers greater than Exar Kun / Freedon Nadd, or is that too simple an explanation? On the other hand, I can also see that it's likely a rhetorical and really offhand question / statement rather than actual fact.
Originally posted by Meatpants
Feels like what the writer is asking is: was it the mask that gave Malak powers greater than Exar Kun / Freedon Nadd, or is that too simple an explanation? On the other hand, I can also see that it's likely a rhetorical and really offhand question / statement rather than actual fact.
As for the question, Malak being stronger than Kun isn't in dispute. It's why he's stronger is the question.
Originally posted by Jaggarath
The author's alluding to the Star Forge as the "too simple an explanation" bit, as indicated later down in the entry.As for the question, Malak being stronger than Kun isn't in dispute. It's why he's stronger is the question.
It's absolutely in dispute when the question itself referencss something boosting Malak's survivability powers and doesn't even reference the Force. 😂