Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

To the Death.

Abraxas 10/10.

Abraxas

Originally posted by id369
To the Death.

Remember, Abraxas doesn't live unless Galactus dies

Originally posted by guy222
Remember, Abraxas doesn't live unless Galactus dies

So if Abraxas dies, does Galactus revive?

Originally posted by guy222
Remember, Abraxas doesn't live unless Galactus dies

Then how come when the 616 Galactus was revived, Abraxas still lived?

The bottom line is that it took Reed /w/ UN to erase Abraxas from existance, and also to repair the Multiversal damage he had done.

Originally posted by Galan007


Then how come when the 616 Galactus was revived, Abraxas still lived?

The bottom line is that it took Reed /w/ UN to erase Abraxas from existance, and also to repair the Multiversal damage he had done.

And yet the Ig has overpowered the UN and the Ig is universal, it draws on the power primordial of 616.

Galactus overpowered Abraxas when he was revived snatching the UN from him.

Abraxas' release caused devastation. Its not that he was so powerful he went around blowing up universes. As Leonidas put it he was Eternitys kryptonite.

Abraxas is being overrated here and yet it was stated by the writers of the comic during his story arc that he was Galactus level.

Originally posted by GalacticStorm
And yet the Ig has overpowered the UN and the Ig is universal, it draws on the power primordial of 616.

Galactus overpowered Abraxas when he was revived snatching the UN from him.

Abraxas' release caused devastation. Its not that he was so powerful he went around blowing up universes. As Leonidas put it he was Eternitys kryptonite.

Abraxas is being overrated here and yet it was stated by the writers of the comic during his story arc that he was Galactus level. What does any of this have to do with what I said?

Originally posted by Galan007
What does any of this have to do with what I said?

Wasnt really directed at you as such but more at the hyping of Abraxas when he has little to no on panel feats which contradict the writers statement at the time that he was Galactus level.

He may have killed alternate universe Galactus' but then so have a bunch of zombies. Noone can make assumptions on an unseen battle. You dont know the state of the Galactus' he killed or how he killed them. He couldve pounced on them when they were weak for example.

When 616 Galactus was revived he blew a worried looking Abraxas back like he was nothing and snatched the UN from him.

Abraxas' release and his presence caused multiversal upheaval. It wasnt through power output therefore referencing that as testament to his power isnt accurate. Once again to quote Leonidas he was Eternitys kryptonite. His presence was caused a reaction in whatever reality he went in. Impressive but not an example of multiversal power.

The IG is universal as proven conclusively by its What If counterparts and the fact that its power source is universal. The Ig had the power to stop the UN.

Despite the fact that the UN had before this Abraxas arc and after this arc always been stated to have universal power, the fact that Reeds application of the UN fixed the multiverse lead some posters to state that the UN directly reset the entire multiverse i.e its power swept across the multiverse and reset everything. An interpretation that ignores all stated about the UN before and after the story arc on panel and/or in official bios.

However if the UN wiped Abraxas out of existence meaning that he never existed then of course neither would the damage his presence caused on his trip around the multiverse. That is in line with established continuity behind the UN and it means i dont have to make up things about a Multi Eternity being reset on panel when such an entity wasnt referenced in the appropriate issue.

Not at you directly, just a general rant. You were quoted just because of the subject matter your post contained.

Not really even Marvel says that the UN is Multiversal

-Franklin Richards and Marvel Girl (the future Valeria Richards) combined their reality-altering powers to re-form Galactus, who then directed the Ultimate Nullifier's destruction of Abraxas, restoring the universes.

http://www.marvel.com/universe/Galactus

Originally posted by juggernaut66666
Not really even Marvel says that the UN is Multiversal

-Franklin Richards and Marvel Girl (the future Valeria Richards) combined their reality-altering powers to re-form Galactus, who then directed the Ultimate Nullifier's destruction of Abraxas, restoring the universes.

http://www.marvel.com/universe/Galactus

Silly silly. jester

That supports my interpretation even more.

That line said they used the UN on Abraxas and THAT action restored the universes.

What did i say previously?



Thats it!

Originally posted by GalacticStorm
However if the UN wiped Abraxas out of existence meaning that he never existed then of course neither would the damage his presence caused on his trip around the multiverse. Nah, if that were true Reed wouldn't have said:

"In order to realign all that is, we needed to end all that was."

http://img186.imageshack.us/img186/7392/earthalignment39jd.th.jpg

Reed did alot more then simply wipe Abraxas from existance.

Originally posted by GalacticStorm
Silly silly. jester

That supports my interpretation even more.

That line said they used the UN on Abraxas and THAT action restored the universes.

What did i say previously?



Thats it!
You hypocrite.
The UN reset the Universes with this it resurrected the Galactuses so Abraxas would be imprisoned again.

Just as i said, im supported on panel by the established continuity for the UN, the fact that no reference is made in the scene in question pertaining to the UN being used on a Multi Eternity as some would claim and the fact that as you've illustrated Marvel supports me online and in bios:

http://img1.putfile.com/thumb/1/713220964.jpg

That makes me happy!

Originally posted by Galan007
Nah, if that were true Reed wouldn't have said:

"In order to realign all that is, wee needed to end all that was."

http://img186.imageshack.us/img186/7392/earthalignment39jd.th.jpg

Reed did alot more then simply wipe Abraxas from existance.

Which can be interpreted to mean 616 Eternity, just as the handbook states:

http://img1.putfile.com/thumb/1/713211579.jpg

Either way it was no Multi-Eternity as conjured up by some posters despite the fact that said entity wasnt referenced or conclusively depicted.

If he resets Eternity then any and all associated with the 616 timeline would be affected, that includes Abraxas. He would never have done the things he did across reality

Originally posted by GalacticStorm
Just as i said, im supported on panel by the established continuity for the UN, the fact that no reference is made in the scene in question pertaining to the UN being used on a Multi Eternity as some would claim and the fact that as you've illustrated Marvel supports me online and in bios:

http://img1.putfile.com/thumb/1/713220964.jpg

That makes me happy!

Galactus dies, Abraxas lives

Originally posted by juggernaut66666
You hypocrite.
The UN reset the Universes with this it resurrected the Galactuses so Abraxas would be imprisoned again.

Hypocrite? Im confronting you with official evidence yet who's the one ignoring it in favour of the opinion of others?

Youre just mad because your feeble attempt got reversed on you. Next time take the time out to actually proof read your posts before spamming the thread. All you've done is bolster my already solid argument.

Once again, that makes me happy.

Originally posted by GalacticStorm
Silly silly. jester

That supports my interpretation even more.

I was talking about this

And forgot this
Originally posted by juggernaut66666
I know this is off topic and such. But you are the most hypocrite ******* on KMC I just realised that you were calling me a non credible member just because I spammed your pathetic posts. You are the non credible not me you cocky ass. I have made 6 respect thread and posted a lot of scans into other respect threads I tried to help as many members as i could by posting scans and Issues or explained some things to them atleast i have done something for the forum and the members while all you did was posting your essays .

Originally posted by GalacticStorm
All you've done is bolster my already solid argument. Solid? Not really.

You posted a few scans saying that the UN is universal, while you disregard the pannel evidence of Reed himself saying that he "needed to end all that was", by you yourself saying "it can be interpreted as".

I'm not saying your wrong, but don't try to boast superiority when your argument is clearly flawed as well.

Ult Nullifier >>> Tenebrous and Aegis

Originally posted by Galan007
Solid? Not really.

You posted a few scans saying that the UN is universal, while you disregard the pannel evidence of Reed himself saying that he "needed to end all that was", by you yourself saying "it can be interpreted as".

I'm not saying your wrong, but don't try to boast superiority when your argument is clearly flawed as well.

My argument is very solid as its backed by the established continuity for the UN, in the Abraxas arc it can be interpreted as being universal, plus official sources back me up all the way. That is an extremely solid argument.

The oppositions argument contradicts established continuity and the handbooks and is based merely on a few ambiguous scenes

Eternity has been described as all that is on many occassions so your Reed quote is both ambiguous and inconclusive.

I think im quite right to boast superiority in terms of this argument.

Originally posted by juggernaut66666
I was talking about this

And forgot this

Originally posted by Rewmac
Ult Nullifier >>> Tenebrous and Aegis

Greater than Abraxas to as we saw quite clearly so whats your point?

Originally posted by GalacticStorm
My argument is very solid as its backed by the established continuity for the UN, in the Abraxas arc it can be interpreted as being universal, plus official sources back me up all the way. That is an extremely solid argument.

The oppositions argument contradicts established continuity and the handbooks and is based merely on a few ambiguous scenes

Eternity has been described as all that is on many occassions so your Reed quote is both ambiguous and inconclusive.

I think im quite right to boast superiority in terms of this argument. So your saying that the UN only wiped out Abraxas, and the 616 universe, and this somehow righted everything Abraxas had done?

You interpreted everything the way you wanted to. For Reed to fix what Abraxas did, he would have had the spread the UN's power throughout several universes. If Reed simply destroyed Abraxas with the UN and that fixed everything he did, don't you think Reed would have said such?

Again you have NO right to boast anything, your argument is just as flawed as the next.

Originally posted by Galan007
So your saying that the UN only wiped out Abraxas, and the 616 universe, and this somehow righted everything Abraxas had done?

You interpreted everything the way you wanted to. For Reed to fix what Abraxas did, he would have had the spread the UN's power throughout several universes. If Reed simply destroyed Abraxas with the UN and that fixed everything he did, don't you think Reed would have said such?

Again you have NO right to boast anything, your argument is just as flawed as the next.

If Abraxas was wiped out of existence, meaning he never existed, or if the universe was reset, in both circumstances all that Abraxas did around the multiverse wouldnt have happened.

That interpretation can be interpreted from the comic and it is supported by marvel in their bios and their official site. You have your opinion about what happened and nothing more.

Why would Reed have commented about destroying Abraxas or resetting Eternity any more than he would comment on using the UN to directly wipe out the entire multiverse.

What do you mean im seeing things the way i want to, well given im supported officially not really Galan and given that your interpretation also happens to contradict established continuity not only would that slur be more fitting for you but all in all it doesnt look good for said interpretation and that point is not debatable.

Given my official support, the support from established continuity and the fact that the opposition shares no such support, no my argument is not as flawed as the next.

Originally posted by GalacticStorm
If Abraxas was wiped out of existence, meaning he never existed, or if the universe was reset, in both circumstances all that Abraxas did around the multiverse wouldnt have happened. This is where you are wrong.

Reed speficially said:
"In order to realign all that is, we needed to end all that was."
http://img186.imageshack.us/img186/7392/earthalignment39jd.th.jpg

It is NEVER once said that Reed "only wiped Abraxas from existance, and that fixed everything" or that he "only reset the 616 universe" as you are assuming.

Reed had to end the universe(s) that were destroyed in order to realign them to how they were before Abraxas. How can it been percieved any other way? I am not being illogical in the slightest.

Originally posted by Galan007
This is where you are wrong.

Reed speficially said:
"In order to realign all that is, we needed to end all that was."
http://img186.imageshack.us/img186/7392/earthalignment39jd.th.jpg

It is NEVER once said that Reed "only wiped Abraxas from existance, and that fixed everything" or that he "only reset the 616 universe" as you are assuming.

Reed had to end the universe(s) that were destroyed in order to realign them to how they were before Abraxas. How can it been percieved any other way? I am not being illogical in the slightest.

^^ Quoted for truth, and spoken better than what I would have written. Only GS thinks the ultimate nullifier was universal only, when all of the on-panel evidence shows otherwise.

What's next GS, are you going to say that multi-Eternity isn't real either because it only shows one Eternity in Marvel handbook?

Originally posted by Galan007
This is where you are wrong.

Reed speficially said:
"In order to realign all that is, we needed to end all that was."
http://img186.imageshack.us/img186/7392/earthalignment39jd.th.jpg

It is NEVER once said that Reed "only wiped Abraxas from existance, and that fixed everything" or that he "only reset the 616 universe" as you are assuming.

Reed had to end the universe(s) that were destroyed in order to realign them to how they were before Abraxas. How can it been percieved any other way? I am not being illogical in the slightest.

Again all that is is a phrase used to describe Eternity. It has been so for many years. By reseting Eternity, all connected with it would be affected and that includes Abraxas who came from Eternity. If the timeline was reset or if Abraxas was wiped out then all that is would be realigned because he would have never have went on his rampage.

Your evidence is again both ambiguous and inconclusive and that is a fact. The terminology isnt definitive. It can be referring to a universe a multiverse even an omniverse. Yet it has been used on many occassions to refer to just Eternity. Theres just no denying that.

Not only that but when reading this you should be looking at it with established continuity in your mind . As per cotinuity the UN is universal. That scene can be established as universal, that is my interpretation, that is what marvel says on their site and in theit handbooks. Your opinion in light of that with all due respect really holds no weight on this issue.

The UN is universal

Originally posted by Kutulu
^^ Quoted for truth, and spoken better than what I would have written. Only GS thinks the ultimate nullifier was universal only, when all of the on-panel evidence shows otherwise.

What's next GS, are you going to say that multi-Eternity isn't real either because it only shows one Eternity in Marvel handbook?

All the on panel evidence? What would that be? Reeds single ambiguous comment. What about all the decades of evidence before this arc that states the UN to be universal? What about the handbooks and the marvel site which follow my interpretation?

The opposition has an ambiguous sentence from Reed Richards and that is all.

Originally posted by GalacticStorm
Again all that is is a phrase used to describe Eternity. It has been so for many years. By reseting Eternity, all connected with it would be affected and that includes Abraxas who came from Eternity. If the timeline was reset or if Abraxas was wiped out then all that is would be realigned because he would have never have went on his rampage.

Your evidence is again both ambiguous and inconclusive and that is a fact. The terminology isnt definitive. It can be referring to a universe a multiverse even an omniverse. Yet it has been used on many occassions to refer to just Eternity. Theres just no denying that.

Not only that but when reading this you should be looking at it with established continuity in your mind . As per cotinuity the UN is universal. That scene can be established as universal, that is my interpretation, that is what marvel says on their site and in theit handbooks. Your opinion in light of that with all due respect really holds no weight on this issue.

The UN is universal ALL of this is only your oppinion.

I have quoted nothing but what is on the page, while you have provided nothing but information from handbooks and thrown in your own personal oppinion on the matter, trying to contradict what is actually shown in the comic.

Call my argument what you will, but understand that your argument is based mostly on your own oppinion, and shouldn't be taken to heart by anyone else who may be viewing this.

Nope. Multi Eternity apparently exists according to Captain Universe. Theres no reason to doubt his existence, theres nothing else on panel to contradict his existence so why would i doubt it?

I doubt this interpretation because the scene their focusing on CAN be interpreted as universal as it makes an ambiguous reference used many a time to refer to universal Eternity, plus in many decades of history the UN is universal, plus Marvels official stance is its universal. It doesnt get much more conclusive than that.

Dont make me out to be some madman with a completely unbelievable viewpoint in light of that.

Originally posted by Galan007
ALL of this is only your oppinion.

I have quoted nothing but what is on the page, while you have provided nothing but information from handbooks and thrown in your own personal oppinion on the matter, trying to contradict what is actually shown in the comic.

Call my argument what you will, but understand that your argument is based mostly on your own oppinion, and shouldn't be taken to heart by anyone else who may be viewing this.

You've quoted an ambiguous statement. Thats not an opinion that is a fact because 616 Eternity UNIVERSAL Eternity has been called all that is.

The fact that you quoted exactly what was in the scan doesnt make your argument any stronger in light of that.

All my evidence comes from on panel as well because i could just as easily say they were referring to 616 Eternity, then i could post loads of scans from 616 and What Ifs referring to the UN as universal and then i could post all handbook bios referring to the Un as universal.

Youre ignoring ALL of that and clinging on to ONE ambiguous comment from Reed that Marvel now and previous established marvel continuity tells you to interpret differently.

Your case is poor when all is taken into account.

Originally posted by GalacticStorm
You've quoted an ambiguous statement. Thats not an opinion that is a fact because 616 Eternity UNIVERSAL Eternity has been called all that is.

The fact that you quoted exactly what was in the scan doesnt make your argument any stronger in light of that.

All my evidence comes from on panel as well because i could just as easily say they were referring to 616 Eternity, then i could post loads of scans from 616 and What Ifs referring to the UN as universal and then i could post all handbook bios referring to the Un as universal.

Youre ignoring ALL of that and clinging on to ONE ambiguous comment from Reed that Marvel now and previous established marvel continuity tells you to interpret differently.

Your case is poor when all is taken into account. The bottom line is that Reed NEVER said that he ONLY erased Abraxas from existance, and we know that resetting 1 universe would not have been enough to realign all that Abraxas had done throughout SEVERAL universes.

Your dancing around this fact by saying that erasing Abraxas would have reset everything, when it was NEVER stated in the entire comic that this is what occured.

So whos case is poor when all is taken into account?