• 103 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
#51 Posted by reikai (4660 posts) - - Show Bio

@sc said:

The reason some people say its retconned is because thats the appraisal of that situation as far as the Official Handbooks are concerned. Unless you are already aware of this and have some new information of knowledge that may possible override that fact? Chronologically its all wonky and even more so is the story - does that mean Death in that story wasn't Death? Or Rot wasn't Rot? Or some other weird combination. Still. Hope that helps and that Ka-zarr story was really bad. lol

Well the Rot was a creature born into existence the moment the Original Thanos died against Adam Warlock, and Death explained that for an instant her energies and those of Thanos had unified briefly when he died. In that moment the Rot was created. Minute and undetectable to all. It was alive because of Thanos, but Not-Alive because there is no life in death. By the time any of the Cosmic Hierarchy noticed it, it was already massive in size, and there wasn't anything they could do about it.

Honestly, there was nothing wrong with the story or its placement. The only reason I can even figure why they would try and cut it out is because they wanted to retcon Mantis from her Madonna status and de-power her for when she gets stuck in Annihilation, Guardians of the Galaxy and Imperative. In Celestial Quest she went from being powerful enough that Thanos could not "easily kill her", and then gets dropped down several tiers for later arcs.

Quoi left to explore the universe with his pirate-lizard girlfriend and that was like the last we see of him. I don't think he's ever appeared since then.

#52 Posted by czarny_samael666 (17174 posts) - - Show Bio

@sc:

0.Let forgot about unusual beginning. If @killemall: belives that his English sucks, I don't want to know how bad is my own.

Your question of whether fictional characters can survive the explosion of a planet and still be able to fight? Sure, probably. Not 100 percent of the time, planets have different sizes and makes up, and so the relative explosions needed to cause a planet will differ dramatically leaving plenty of room for such characters as ones discussed in this thread to survive and fight on from.

Depends:

If certain character never survived planet explosion (or at least one equal to), there is no reason to belive he can.

I don't recall Adam or Bizarro surviving something like this. IIRC Lobo survived it. IDK about Etrigan.

Until it can be proven that they can, Thanos wins in first move.

Not unreasonable but also opens up a hole as far as other characters too, like based on hyperbole Glory should be well comparable to a character like Odin, in fact in excess to Odin based on hyperbole but does that mean based on Thor's experience with Glory Thor should anything?

Not that I'm defending point about Fallen One (who still survived Gas Giant explosion), but Thor in theory has a chance with Skyfather thanks to Mjolnir. Mjolnir's best feat was absorbing Granmaster's bomb explosion, that was supposed to be able to destroy 1/5 of universe. If Odin wouldn't already have full control over Mjolnir, Thor could absorb his best balst and redirect it on his father.

Basically what I am saying is I don't think current Thanos would have as an easy time with current Silver Surfer.

Current Silver Surfer was depowered by Galactus in Mighty Thor. He is no longer in level he was after Annihilation. He has some good feats, but hardly in Thanos league.

And If You thought about PA Surfer, then You could be right, since Surfer was able to deal with BRB with few punches. Something similar to what Thanos done to him.

When you use the word match, well there are two ways to apply the word, in a singular sense or plural. I do not disagree that Thanos did match Thor with power gem, but I do not disagree either that at some point Thanos could no longer match Thor and retired because of that and used an external means of neutralizing Thor (Thor who was also using an external source of power not his own, and also a Thor whose power was increasing as he tapped more and more into the gem) so its as reasonable to say Thanos couldn't match Thor with a power gem. Sure he did temporarily, but not as an ongoing venture. In any sense it doesn't really matter because I do not think any of the DC characters here are similar to a power gem powered Thor anyway, but I also don't think that because Thanos has dealt with very powerful individuals with raw power like Kosmos means he can deal with four "Thor type" beings (they aren't really like Thor but probably more like Thor than say Kosmos) attacking at once with all characters in bloodlust. To use Thor as an example again, at times in the past he matched Zeus, but it could be a bit much to use that as a basis that Thor would always match Zeus without Zeus probably eventually overcoming Thor.

Point is rather what PG was for Thor from the beginning.

Champion with unknown cosmic braceltes destroyed a planet and wanted to take PG from Drax.

PG Drax one-shotted this version of Champion.

In Infinity Crusade, PG Drax and Thor fought for long without any clear score at the end.

Right after B&T started and Thor was able to take Maxam and PG Drax couldn't hold Thor, who managed to take PG from Drax. It leads me to conclusion that Thor was already stronger than PG Drax (person who can one-shot planet buster). Before that Thor defeated BRB who is planet buster himself (which means that Thor also has to be, since only thing that only difference between them are their character/morals) and Silver Surfer (along with Adam Warlock).

Since Thanos can take on PG Thor and not lost and we know that he is stronger than Classic Drax (who ripped small star apart), he is levels above people from Team 2. Of course until IDK something important about them.

BTW, Thor matched Zeus only because Zeus wanted to test him.

Fight with Kosmos also matters here, since it shows how great are his offensive capabilities in energy manipulation.

#53 Posted by Floopay (8721 posts) - - Show Bio

@czarny_samael666:

Quasar 60ish I think? Been awhile since I've had my Quasar collection.

Found the image though.

I think he was Star Knight at the time, but I'd have to look into that.

Thanks for reading,

Floopay

#54 Posted by CosmosTyrant (492 posts) - - Show Bio

SS and Nova discover a Planet destroyed by Champion.

Survive a Planet busting punch by Champion and comes out with no scratch.

Thanos destroys a planet just by hand locking with Drax.

SS can survive in a sun, black hole, planet busting attack's and able to destroy planets with no difficulty.

But jet Thanos beat him from an inch from death with 8 punches.

Thanos vs Fallen One.. In this fight 2 planets are destroyed 1 Gas giant. Thanos walks away from both with nothing but hes cloth's damaged. Remember Fallen One is a Herald, Supposedly one of Gala more powerful and ruthless, And very fast will in space. This fight shows not just Thanos durability but Speed.

This guys will know what a true demon is.

#55 Posted by SC (13341 posts) - - Show Bio

@reikai said:

Well the Rot was a creature born into existence the moment the Original Thanos died against Adam Warlock, and Death explained that for an instant her energies and those of Thanos had unified briefly when he died. In that moment the Rot was created. Minute and undetectable to all. It was alive because of Thanos, but Not-Alive because there is no life in death. By the time any of the Cosmic Hierarchy noticed it, it was already massive in size, and there wasn't anything they could do about it. Honestly, there was nothing wrong with the story or its placement. The only reason I can even figure why they would try and cut it out is because they wanted to retcon Mantis from her Madonna status and de-power her for when she gets stuck in Annihilation, Guardians of the Galaxy and Imperative. In Celestial Quest she went from being powerful enough that Thanos could not "easily kill her", and then gets dropped down several tiers for later arcs. Quoi left to explore the universe with his pirate-lizard girlfriend and that was like the last we see of him. I don't think he's ever appeared since then.

Wow pirate lizard? Pirate lizards have names you know =p, she was Raptra and no to be serious I know what you mean, as far as the story details, it causes more problems that fixes and really if their are going to be retcons it should be to fix stuff up not make it more confusing but its what they want with their continuity. I can look for a scan later if you wish, I wouldn't be surprised if Starlin just wanted it retconned because he was kind of precious when it came to Thanos.

Moderator
#56 Posted by Betatesthighlander1 (7487 posts) - - Show Bio

@floopay said:

I don't remember Thor ever beating Thanos.

And I don't remember Silver Surfer killing Thanos. Thanos almost killed the Silver Surfer, and left him at death's mercy, but that was about it. The only time Surfer was able to stalemate Thanos was when the two were caught in an illusionary nightmare of sorts, and equal in terms of stats.

Thanos withstood a full blast from the Surfer and it did nothing to him...on two different occasions. He was holding off against blows from Champion and Thor while those two were holding the Power Gem. He had no problem taking 100 megaton blasts to his ears from Quasar. He was tanking blasts from Odin which threatened the destruction of Asgard (he had to stop because of it). He went toe to toe with the Tyrant, and won. He survived an attack from Galactus, who stated he had to strain some effort for the attack. He withstood a barrage from the Runner.

He's not just resistant to pain, he's extremely resistant to injury. He can easily withstand planet busting attacks without so much as scratching his person.

Thanks for reading,

Floopay

Thor beat Thanos before

1.Surfer never killeed Thanos. Thanos fake his own death, because he wanted to collect Infinity Gems in secret.

2.Thor never beaten Thanos to my knowledge and I belive that I've seen all their battles. At least not on his own power.

The closest thing he has done was shooting off Thanos with his bomb after IG saga, but Thanos again fake his death, to not be attacked by Avengers, X-Men, Drax, heralds, FF, Strange and other heroes that were present there.

Thor won with Thanos (or Thanosi) in Thor vol 2. (about 25 issue), but both were using magical artifacts to boost themselves. Thor had part of Odin Force in that fight.

When they were fighting in Blood & Thunder, Thor had Power Gem. He couldn't loose that fight, but he was still too weak to put down Thanos. And Mad Titan knew it, so get this blaster to imprison Thor.

No, SS killed Thanos, Death just let him come back

#57 Posted by SC (13341 posts) - - Show Bio

If certain character never survived planet explosion (or at least one equal to), there is no reason to belive he can. I don't recall Adam or Bizarro surviving something like this. IIRC Lobo survived it. IDK about Etrigan. Until it can be proven that they can, Thanos wins in first move.

Based on your standards of evidence which is fine. To me absence of evidence equalling evidence of absence is one of the most horrific of logical fallacies. If we know a characters peers and how they interact with certain characters as well as entities and objects around themselves and each other as well as writers intent then there is a very good and valid reason to extend them the ability to possibly do something as weigh up probabilities. If you claimed to be able to eat a sandwich, and I had proof you could eat a burger and that you had a sandwich in your kitchen, then actually you don't have to have proof you can eat a sandwich. We can deduce that you probably can without having factual undeniable proof you can. Of course this works in Thanos favor, as well, its not as if an explosion 1 percent bigger than the biggest Thanos has endured will magically kill him now. Ironically when has it ever been in Thanos personality to destroy a planet as the first move? I won't say prove that Thanos would do that against four characters because chances are he hasn't ever beat four characters by destroying a planet as an opening move but then again absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence.

So yeah basically again our standards of evidence are different, no biggee.

I agree in theory and in being objective, but not throwing in plot, the very thing that dictates when characters get feats and why. Oh and I mean Odin specifically, its unlikely that any writer would be allowed to have Thor kick Odin's goat even as a fluke chance because of the imbalance it would cause for future Thor stories. It would basically neuter Odin's authority and presence and well, I wouldn't say it will never happen in mainstream continuity, but are bigger obstacles for Thor to overcome than just power here. Like remember the pain Marvel brought themselves when they had Thor beat Shiva? Hah. I don't disagree here though being main point.

Point is rather what PG was for Thor from the beginning.Champion with unknown cosmic braceltes destroyed a planet and wanted to take PG from Drax.PG Drax one-shotted this version of Champion.In Infinity Crusade, PG Drax and Thor fought for long without any clear score at the end.Right after B&T started and Thor was able to take Maxam and PG Drax couldn't hold Thor, who managed to take PG from Drax. It leads me to conclusion that Thor was already stronger than PG Drax (person who can one-shot planet buster). Before that Thor defeated BRB who is planet buster himself (which means that Thor also has to be, since only thing that only difference between them are their character/morals) and Silver Surfer (along with Adam Warlock).Since Thanos can take on PG Thor and not lost and we know that he is stronger than Classic Drax (who ripped small star apart), he is levels above people from Team 2. Of course until IDK something important about them.BTW, Thor matched Zeus only because Zeus wanted to test him.Fight with Kosmos also matters here, since it shows how great are his offensive capabilities in energy manipulation.

I do not disagree with anything here, just not sure what is addressing to me, and yes that is my point about the term matched. Its not really that good at providing context, there are superior ways to establish how characters interact with each other. Oh and I think your English is great too! Usually the people who worry about it tend to be tougher on themselves.

Moderator
#58 Posted by laflux (17548 posts) - - Show Bio

@sc: I don't usually see you running around in the battle forums. What brought this pleasant and unexpected surprise?

#59 Posted by reikai (4660 posts) - - Show Bio

No, SS killed Thanos, Death just let him come back

No, Surfer killed Nebula's crony whom Thanos surgically altered to look like himself and had Surfer kill him instead so Surfer wouldn't get in Thanos' way when he went after the Elders of the Universe an the In-Betweener for their Infinity Gems. The time Thanos died was prior to this after he had killed Adam Warlock and Warlock came back through the Soul Gem and pulled a plot-device kill on Thanos.

#60 Posted by SC (13341 posts) - - Show Bio

@laflux said:

@sc: I don't usually see you running around in the battle forums. What brought this pleasant and unexpected surprise?

Heh heh hey **waves out** I pop into Battles now and then when the sun turns green and the red lotus flowers billow to the east. I would pop in more often but I prefer political/religious/ethical debates more. Battles is still got some cool nice people to pop in and read/talk to though too.

Moderator
#61 Posted by czarny_samael666 (17174 posts) - - Show Bio

@sc:

Based on your standards of evidence which is fine. To me absence of evidence equalling evidence of absence is one of the most horrific of logical fallacies. If we know a characters peers and how they interact with certain characters as well as entities and objects around themselves and each other as well as writers intent then there is a very good and valid reason to extend them the ability to possibly do something as weigh up probabilities. If you claimed to be able to eat a sandwich, and I had proof you could eat a burger and that you had a sandwich in your kitchen, then actually you don't have to have proof you can eat a sandwich. We can deduce that you probably can without having factual undeniable proof you can. Of course this works in Thanos favor, as well, its not as if an explosion 1 percent bigger than the biggest Thanos has endured will magically kill him now. Ironically when has it ever been in Thanos personality to destroy a planet as the first move? I won't say prove that Thanos would do that against four characters because chances are he hasn't ever beat four characters by destroying a planet as an opening move but then again absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence.

1.It doesn't have to be planet explosion. It can be anything similar that tell us that someone can do something in this level. For example: Thor used planet level power without destroying a planet.

2.This logic (with point made in 1.) is the only one that could be used, since one opposite would bring us chaos. Imagine character that had only 10 appearances. He won all fights and was never KOd. His strength and energy projection was said to be limitless, but was never tested by anything in even Hulk's level. Without assumptions, in theory we could put this character against Odin or Galactus, because we don't know its limits.

Feats are characters' limits, that is why I belive that Thanos can end them (considering that there is no proof that ever survived similar explosion) in this way. Their feats simply aren't in this level.

3.IIRC all of these people were putted down by much lower force than planet level attacks. And I'm talking about situations that aren't in contradiction to their best feats. I see no reason to belive that they can survive it.

4.Thanos would be bad example, since he took best Odin's attacks and was still able to fight. But if character A would be tested by planet level explosion and he would pass that test, I would still say that Gas Giant level explosion can end him, since his feats doesn't prove opposite.

5.Thanos is bloodlusted here, so he should use full power in his strikes and all possible way to deal with his enemies. In character of course. Thanos already proved, that when it is needed, planets can cease to exist.

6.Mad Titan in weakned state already did something similar before Thanos Imperative, when he (according to Guardians) killed ever living being on planet on which he was resurected.

It would basically neuter Odin's authority and presence and well, I wouldn't say it will never happen in mainstream continuity

I hope it will never happen.

Like remember the pain Marvel brought themselves when they had Thor beat Shiva?

I remember that fight and Shiva's explanation that he was weakned outside of Nirvana. Marvel had real problems with that or was that a metaphor?

I do not disagree with anything here, just not sure what is addressing to me, and yes that is my point about the term matched.

I was making a point, that this fight matters here, because Thanos' fights with Kosmos, PG Thor, DP Tyrant, Classic Drax, Fallen One, Avengers, Surfer, pimp-slapping Hulk and Drax and in some way ones with Odin and Walker proves that Thanos can take physical and energy attacks from every person from Team 2, but they shouldn't be able to take what Thanos can bring to the table.

#62 Edited by czarny_samael666 (17174 posts) - - Show Bio

@floopay said:

@czarny_samael666:

Quasar 60ish I think? Been awhile since I've had my Quasar collection.

Found the image though.

I think he was Star Knight at the time, but I'd have to look into that.

Thanks for reading,

Floopay

I will try to find it. Somehow I belive that Thanos was boosted here, considering his size.

@betatesthighlander1:

This Thor had part of OdinForce in him.

I don't remember it perfectly, but to my knowledge Thanos fake his death, Surfer didn't kill him.

#63 Posted by SC (13341 posts) - - Show Bio

1.It doesn't have to be planet explosion. It can be anything similar that tell us that someone can do something in this level. For example: Thor used planet level power without destroying a planet. 2.This logic (with point made in 1.) is the only one that could be used, since one opposite would bring us chaos. Imagine character that had only 10 appearances. He won all fights and was never KOd. His strength and energy projection was said to be limitless, but was never tested by anything in even Hulk's level. Without assumptions, in theory we could put this character against Odin or Galactus, because we don't know its limits. Feats are characters' limits, that is why I belive that Thanos can end them (considering that there is no proof that ever survived similar explosion) in this way. Their feats simply aren't in this level. 3.IIRC all of these people were putted down by much lower force than planet level attacks. And I'm talking about situations that aren't in contradiction to their best feats. I see no reason to belive that they can survive it. 4.Thanos would be bad example, since he took best Odin's attacks and was still able to fight. But if character A would be tested by planet level explosion and he would pass that test, I would still say that Gas Giant level explosion can end him, since his feats doesn't prove opposite. 5.Thanos is bloodlusted here, so he should use full power in his strikes and all possible way to deal with his enemies. In character of course. Thanos already proved, that when it is needed, planets can cease to exist. 6.Mad Titan in weakned state already did something similar before Thanos Imperative, when he (according to Guardians) killed ever living being on planet on which he was resurected.

I think perhaps you confuse absence of evidence not being evidence as therefore no evidence is needed for any assertion to be possible? There would be no chaos, chaos would only come when people insist something is without actually having any good reasons to validate their insistence. A character not losing does not mean a character can't lose, works both ways, because a lack of loss does not mean the inability to lose. Believing a statement about a characters potential as assuming. In fact almost everything in fiction is an assumption. Its not about trying to oversimplify these facts just recognizing this. Feats are subjective understandings/interpretations of a characters fictional narrative, this is why I never use arguments that rely on feats and why all professional apologists and debaters and real life tore such arguments as they pertain to religion, ethics, morality, politics, theology, philosophy ages ago. Such arguments only work when the person your arguing with agrees to those limits.

What do you mean they were put down in ways that don't contradict there best feats? A few months ago Thing, Red, Green Hulk all made Thanos bleed. So would you say that contradicts or? Again you are still going with "feats" I am considering that but considering more as well. Oh and asserting Thanos took Odins best hits? Based on? How do you know Odins best hits were given?

Moderator
#64 Posted by SC (13341 posts) - - Show Bio

I remember that fight and Shiva's explanation that he was weakned outside of Nirvana. Marvel had real problems with that or was that a metaphor?

Oops forget to quote other stuff sorry lol

Yeah they retconned that situation so wasn't Shiva - to quell controversy/potential controversy.

Moderator
#65 Posted by CosmosTyrant (492 posts) - - Show Bio

@betatesthighlander1: Thor was been emp by the Odin-Force,Belt of strength and a amp Mjolnir. That is not Thanos it is Thanosi a doppelganger.

#66 Posted by Betatesthighlander1 (7487 posts) - - Show Bio
#67 Posted by Killemall (18607 posts) - - Show Bio

@sc: Firstly sorry but what you said was very close to what i was trying to say about Fallen One, the terms i should have used would be "probably would be similar to Silver Surfer" as opposed to should, thats just me taking leeway on grammar that i always do :p

Not as related but Thor vs Glory was a pretty decent feat for Thor and i do honestly believe Glory was meant to be just as powerful as Odin in not above (same with Surtur in recent Fraction's run), but in the fight against Glory he had an ambigious amp , or unknown magnitude, because of the prayer which he mentions as an unexpected spark, Marvel Handbook 2006 backs the fact that he had the amp with prayers (and against Surtur which i am pretty sure you are aware he used the shadow of Twilight sword).

With plot on the side Thor has beaten Skyfather level being before its not uncommon and his power level changes based on who he is fightining anyways.

Secondly you pointed Kosmos and Odin where not similar to the team he is fighting here, perhaps these would help.

Avengers Final Threat Thanos fights and beats Thor and Thing together with relative ease (i am trying to avoid the scans before this where heroes fight Thanos's minions, while Thanos is fighting other heroes), and while Thor does get up few pages later Thor seem to be down for about 5 scans.

There is another, very shot scene of Thanos fighting Thor, Hulk and Thing together for well 2 panels before Galactus arrives and it does look like he was over powering both Hulk and Thing together (not Thor though) in Quasar 38

Fight with Thor is just shown for 1 panel in Infinity War 4, which i understand doesnt help for the thread, just wanted to put it out there.

So what i am trying to say is that, Thanos has been shown to be capable of handling multiple heroes, at least 2 at any given time, with relative ease. He effectively got thing down in one shot (he has done that 2 additional times) and Thor in 2.

In regards to other showing of his strength and durability, his subsequent rise in power (which seem to have been ignored in his most recent Avengers Assemble, but will have to wait for Infinity and Thanos Rising to give a better picture) should give one a reasonable basis to suggest he could very well do extremely well here.

As per speed we have a Thanos bio to go with which puts Thanos speed at 3 out of 7, making him just as Captain America so yeah he cant run fast. What i was pointing out was, most bio backs the fact that when Thanos enchanced himself, apart from his physical attributed he enhanced his reaction time (this is from Marvel Handbook 2006)

So while i believe Thanos is slowest among the group, given that we know he has enchanced reaction time and he has fought people with super-speed on multiple time, i suppose he could counter speed. If i am reading your argument correctly you believe Thanos has a speed advantage, while i believe the opposite to be true (but there is a good chance i am reading it wrong :)

Avengers Celestial Quest was retconned not because of his performance in the series, which was pretty good, but rather the odd ending. After having killed Rot, Lady Death willingly offers Thanos to be her consort, but Thanos rejects and to quote Thanos's exact words "You see Thanos as a husband, half of a duo. Never! I offered you love but never fealty! Mating is an affirmation of life. It is for Mantis not for you. If you will have me you are not worthy".

Its that idea of Thanos finding Death unworthy, is what led Starlin to retcon the event. Its in one of the Marvel Age interview i believe sorry never actually saved those cuts for future reference.

#68 Edited by SC (13341 posts) - - Show Bio

@killemall said:

Firstly sorry but what you said was very close to what i was trying to say about Fallen One, the terms i should have used would be "probably would be similar to Silver Surfer" as opposed to should, thats just me taking leeway on grammar that i always do :p

That is okay, I debate a lot of a certain apologetics, and so grammar definitions tend to play a role as far as logic arguments especially as far as the strength of rather claims than the validity of claims.

Thats cool, I believe otherwise as far as Word of God. The writer has stated that Glory is akin to all the gods in Asgard within Odin. Thats my basis for belief that Glory was meant to be more powerful than Odin "The thing that makes Glory so interesting-to me, at least-is the fact that he's not one single god: he's the embodiment of an entire pantheon, Imagine if all the gods of Asgard were one being, contained within the body of Odin, and you'll get some sense of just how powerful Glory is" - J.M. DeMatteis. I think its a pretty solid basis.

You can not really remove plot from comics. With plot on all characters side characters do what they do. Plot is inherent to the characters definition, characteristics, motivations, attitudes. Plot defines what a skyfather is, all things change based on what they affecting with in comics. Such points ultimately apply to all characters, and from there you can reason relatively objective assertions about the entities/aspects/elements based on reasoning which includes things like consistency. Thor has had blonde hair for 500 plus issues, if his hair was changed to black randomly probably best explanation is to due to some plot aspect which doesn't necessarily make the hair switch illegitimate because of its inconsistency but not necessarily caused by reasonable reasons for lack of inconsistency either (say an artist error)

Secondly you pointed Kosmos and Odin where not similar to the team he is fighting here, perhaps these would help. Avengers Final Threat Thanos fights and beats Thor and Thing together with relative ease (i am trying to avoid the scans before this where heroes fight Thanos's minions, while Thanos is fighting other heroes), and while Thor does get up few pages later Thor seem to be down for about 5 scans.

They do not I am afraid, I am aware of them all, and none fit my standard or criteria. Like what is your definition of beat? Since based on your conclusion and assertion I think we would again have different reasoning behind our definitions/basis. Then thats before even addressing what constitutes as relative ease. Do Thing and Thor knock Thanos down with relative ease? Why? Why not? If they did once what is to stop them from doing it with relative ease over and over? Sorry what do you mean by scans? Panels or pages? What does down mean to you? Down down mean beat?

So what i am trying to say is that, Thanos has been shown to be capable of handling multiple heroes, at least 2 at any given time, with relative ease. He effectively got thing down in one shot (he has done that 2 additional times) and Thor in 2. In regards to other showing of his strength and durability, his subsequent rise in power (which seem to have been ignored in his most recent Avengers Assemble, but will have to wait for Infinity and Thanos Rising to give a better picture) should give one a reasonable basis to suggest he could very well do extremely well here.

A few things, do you consider Thing to be on the same level as any of the DC characters in this thread? Do you know much about numbers and the threshold for awareness, especially as far as focus/concentration? Do you distinguish between fighting against two or more characters and beating two or more characters? As far as advantages and stacking? That last question I will expand on, since if we take Thanos impressing physical beating of Surfer as a frame of reference, do you think Thanos would get the chance to do that if three other characters are right there attacking him at the same time? Numbers is a huge advantage, because it basically means that unless Thanos can one shot such characters, that he won't really get the chance to take any of them out especially if he isn't thinking laterally. I personally could see Thanos one shotting Thing and easily beating Thing but not any of the characters here. Even if he hurts one, the numbers game means they get respite and chance to recover to a degree, where as Thanos on the other hand does not. So as far as what can help me - is actually if Thanos were to fight four characters like Thor, Hulk, Surfer and Red Hulk for an extend period of time simultaneously (all blood lusted) - the Thing doesn't cut the grade for me sorry and four is significantly more than two and even three to me because of what stacking basically means. In reality we know that abstract numbers values are at a fixed ratio, four is equal to four one's. Two twos are equal to one four and so on, but in practice its a lot more messier and for me what would be enough good evidence to prove the basis of good reasoning that Thanos should be the victor would be for it to be consistent in his nature to either one shot with consistency the type of characters talked about here (but not Thing) or actually have a history of beating such characters, four or more and in a blood lust with consistency) So its a tough sell.

So while i believe Thanos is slowest among the group, given that we know he has enchanced reaction time and he has fought people with super-speed on multiple time, i suppose he could counter speed. If i am reading your argument correctly you believe Thanos has a speed advantage, while i believe the opposite to be true (but there is a good chance i am reading it wrong :) Avengers Celestial Quest was retconned not because of his performance in the series, which was pretty good, but rather the odd ending. After having killed Rot, Lady Death willingly offers Thanos to be her consort, but Thanos rejects and to quote Thanos's exact words "You see Thanos as a husband, half of a duo. Never! I offered you love but never fealty! Mating is an affirmation of life. It is for Mantis not for you. If you will have me you are not worthy".

I am actually saying that I believe speed here would relatively negligible here as far as determining who wins, but plays a relatively important role in determining who doesn't lose. Thats a bit cryptic so I'll expand, I don't think that the DC characters will be able to "blitz" Thanos, hitting him 100 times before he can hit any of them, I believe Thanos will actually tag and be able to mount an offense. Thanos will definitely not be able to perform any speed blitz of his own mind you, so I do not give Thanos a speed advantage, unless you could possibly say give him the advantage of actually being able to land hits. That also being said characters like Bizarro and Black Adam are very mobile as well as fast. They move and fight differently to Thanos and even differently to Thor and Thing. Surfer and Gladiator could be comparable as far as mobility, and its important to note this as far as defensively, if Thanos does manage to get the upper hand on any of the quartet, it shouldn't be long before he loses that advantage by virtue of having to turn his attention elsewhere if he is not actually just taken unaware by being slammed into by either Teth or Bizarro. In fact something similar sort of happened in Avengers Assemble, where Groot, two Hulks and like Luke Cage (among others, but they were ones shown landing hits) made Thanos bleed. So in a defensive sense, even if the four DC characters individually could be beaten by Thanos, even if they aren't working as a team, they give each other respite by virtue of numbers, and they do so in a way that can't be compared to Thor or Thing because Thing is not in the same league and neither Thing or Thor are arguably as mobile and prone to being able to launch super fast attacks that could mean the difference between a knocked over and dazed ally and a unconscious ally. So thats what I mean as far as speed between Thanos and team.

Oh that is what I mean about Starlin being funky/precious with Thanos. Thank you for the reference, I will try and track down myself - do you know if that was online or in a actual printed material?

Moderator
#69 Edited by Killemall (18607 posts) - - Show Bio

@floopay said:

@czarny_samael666:

Quasar 60ish I think? Been awhile since I've had my Quasar collection.

Found the image though.

I think he was Star Knight at the time, but I'd have to look into that.

Thanks for reading,

Floopay

Thats Thanos with Infinity Gauntlet perhaps mocking him, its not like Quasar ever manages to beat Thanos, specially one with Infinity Gauntlet would be rather aweful writing, and he wasnt Stark Knight, not sure where you got that from, he did have a sliver of starbrand with him though, which he wasnt using consciously anyways.

@sc said:

That is okay, I debate a lot of a certain apologetics, and so grammar definitions tend to play a role as far as logic arguments especially as far as the strength of rather claims than the validity of claims.

Fair enough.

You can not really remove plot from comics. With plot on all characters side characters do what they do. Plot is inherent to the characters definition, characteristics, motivations, attitudes. Plot defines what a skyfather is, all things change based on what they affecting with in comics. Such points ultimately apply to all characters, and from there you can reason relatively objective assertions about the entities/aspects/elements based on reasoning which includes things like consistency. Thor has had blonde hair for 500 plus issues, if his hair was changed to black randomly probably best explanation is to due to some plot aspect which doesn't necessarily make the hair switch illegitimate because of its inconsistency but not necessarily caused by reasonable reasons for lack of inconsistency either (say an artist error)

As far as discussion on battle thread is concerned we do tend to distinguish between a fight won on a character own accord vs plot. And yes i understand its comics there is at least some amount of plot or story related component always involved in a fight, but not all fight do you see a character winning against another because of an ability or a weapon they never had before or are never going to happen again.

Going back to Glory instance, Thor was amped by prayers, where there has been few references of Thor's power level changing because of prayers, even way back in 40s where he looked completely different under Venus issues, you dont see many Thor issue where Thor himself attributes his victory to power gained from such amp.

Addressing Surtur point, which is something i brought up rather than you, Thor killed him using the shadow of a twilight sword, something he doesnt normally have access to and likely will not have anytime soon either (he appreantly died in Age of Ultron 03 off panel, not sure how that fits into the chronology).

If a victory is attributed , in a substantial part to an extrenal amp or device that a character normally doesnt have access to, i think its reasonable to separate those from his other appearances.

They do not I am afraid, I am aware of them all, and none fit my standard or criteria. Like what is your definition of beat? Since based on your conclusion and assertion I think we would again have different reasoning behind our definitions/basis. Then thats before even addressing what constitutes as relative ease. Do Thing and Thor knock Thanos down with relative ease? Why? Why not? If they did once what is to stop them from doing it with relative ease over and over? Sorry what do you mean by scans? Panels or pages? What does down mean to you? Down down mean beat?

Fair enough, its what you genuinely believe i understand.

I will however try to answer or at least give my opinion on things asked

1. Do i think Thor and Thing knock down Thanos with relative ease?

Yes i do, they two joined force, landed a good hit, Thanos dropped on the ground. Neither of the 2 character seem overly stressed in doing so , nor did this act of dropping him took them substantive amount of time. 3 panels Thanos is on the ground, so i maintain relative ease.

2. Couldnt they do it over and over again?

If Thanos decides not to attack, sure why not. The difference is Thanos did decide to attack, firstly with his eye beams that knocked both of them on the ground, Thing was no longer capable of standing up, Thor was although he looked pretty hurt. Then a second cosmic blast and Thor was down.

3. What do i mean by scans?

Pages in comics. Thor was down for about 5 pages (dont know the exact number of pages as i do not have the complete issue with me, just the scans of them fighting, i however know than after 2 of them were likely knocked out, Spiderman got help from the abstracts, who manipulated Spiderman into freeing Warlock, who then turned Thanos into stone, it was only then we see Thor get up even then not in the best of shape)

If Thor wasnt actually knocked out, or at the least seriously stunned, you wouldnt expect a warrior born to let his friends struggle against Thanos i would believe, nor is Thor of a nature to sit down on the ground waiting for someone else to finish the fight for him.

4. Down means beat down?

Down as in lying on the floor unable to add anything to the fight anymore, despite Avengers altogether being in trouble against Thanos alone , before Warlock turned Thanos into stone.

A few things, do you consider Thing to be on the same level as any of the DC characters in this thread? Do you know much about numbers and the threshold for awareness, especially as far as focus/concentration? Do you distinguish between fighting against two or more characters and beating two or more characters? As far as advantages and stacking? That last question I will expand on, since if we take Thanos impressing physical beating of Surfer as a frame of reference, do you think Thanos would get the chance to do that if three other characters are right there attacking him at the same time? Numbers is a huge advantage, because it basically means that unless Thanos can one shot such characters, that he won't really get the chance to take any of them out especially if he isn't thinking laterally. I personally could see Thanos one shotting Thing and easily beating Thing but not any of the characters here. Even if he hurts one, the numbers game means they get respite and chance to recover to a degree, where as Thanos on the other hand does not. So as far as what can help me - is actually if Thanos were to fight four characters like Thor, Hulk, Surfer and Red Hulk for an extend period of time simultaneously (all blood lusted) - the Thing doesn't cut the grade for me sorry and four is significantly more than two and even three to me because of what stacking basically means. In reality we know that abstract numbers values are at a fixed ratio, four is equal to four one's. Two twos are equal to one four and so on, but in practice its a lot more messier and for me what would be enough good evidence to prove the basis of good reasoning that Thanos should be the victor would be for it to be consistent in his nature to either one shot with consistency the type of characters talked about here (but not Thing) or actually have a history of beating such characters, four or more and in a blood lust with consistency) So its a tough sell.

You misunderstand my intent, i was not trying to saw Thing is on leagues with any of the people above, but then Thanos can in fact fight with more than one character at any time, and the number advantage isnt an outright win against Thanos.

If Thanos can stun Thor and Thing together with a blast to a point none of them are any longer capable of making an impact in a fight , and this takes place before Thanos stats were officially improved after Death's resurrection , i think one can ague team will have the same problem.

Thanos could reasonably just mind control one of them to fighting others, his is pretty accomplished telepath, not sure how much his bloodlust will prevent him from doing that.

And about the retcon , i believed it was in Marvel Age interview which actually is an official publication, but now i know i was wrong, coz the last issue of marvel age was published before Avengers: Celestial Quest. I cant recall on top of the head where the reason is given, but if anyone is interested on where the retcon occurs, its in 2 places, once during Infinity Abyss 2 and once during Thanos 01.

#70 Edited by Killemall (18607 posts) - - Show Bio

@betatesthighlander1 said:

I don't know man, Silver Surfer has killed Thanos, and Thor has beaten the guy before, and any of these guys are about on level with either of those two. the whole smiling thing, while showing remarkable resistance to pain, still betrays his limited durability

I dont know where you are getting this information from but neither of this is true, i am would like to help you.

Can you show me what scan was shown to convince you that Silver Surfer killed Thanos?

As a point of fact: and trust me i have read every Thanos issue thus far i even created a Thanos chronology thread here, Silver surfer has never beaten Thanos nor killed him, not even once and has not even come close (unless you count an instance where neither Thanos or Silver Sufer had powers in an astral fight created by Dr. Strange)

Thor has also never actually beaten Thanos, the scans you posted are from Thor: Tears of a God saga, and both Thor and Thanos were buffed up in that series. Thor has a silver of Odin Force, belt of strength (you can see him wearing the belt) as well as Odin shield (the shield he has in his hand in the scans you posted) while Thanos was amped because he , by torturing Thor made Designati (Thor Girl) cry , drank her tears and was more powerful. This appearence however has been retconned as being a Thanoside, you can find a reference to it in 2 series: the first is Infinity Abyss and the second is Thanos 01 (his own min, not to be confused with Thanos Rising 01, thats a different issue which just came out yesterday).

And Thanos durability is anything but limited, after all he is known for durability.

#71 Edited by czarny_samael666 (17174 posts) - - Show Bio

@sc:

I think perhaps you confuse absence of evidence not being evidence as therefore no evidence is needed for any assertion to be possible? There would be no chaos, chaos would only come when people insist something is without actually having any good reasons to validate their insistence. A character not losing does not mean a character can't lose, works both ways, because a lack of loss does not mean the inability to lose. Believing a statement about a characters potential as assuming. In fact almost everything in fiction is an assumption. Its not about trying to oversimplify these facts just recognizing this. Feats are subjective understandings/interpretations of a characters fictional narrative, this is why I never use arguments that rely on feats and why all professional apologists and debaters and real life tore such arguments as they pertain to religion, ethics, morality, politics, theology, philosophy ages ago. Such arguments only work when the person your arguing with agrees to those limits.

1.But according to Your logic, we can't compare any characters to each other. Feats are the only thing that can tell us who wins the battle.

2.There are objective feats after all. Destuction of planet is such a feat. If some character's best accomplishment is destroying a mountain and he never defeated a planet buster, there is nothing that could suggest that such a character can hurt Thanos or Surfer by physical force.

You actually don't bring any reason why Thanos should lose this battle or be hurt by his enemies.

What do you mean they were put down in ways that don't contradict there best feats? A few months ago Thing, Red, Green Hulk all made Thanos bleed. So would you say that contradicts or? Again you are still going with "feats" I am considering that but considering more as well. Oh and asserting Thanos took Odins best hits? Based on? How do you know Odins best hits were given?

1.I mean that I am not talking about low-showings. Namor losing to Thing was low-showing, possibly PIS, since we don't even know how exactly Namor lost. Using this fight to prove that Namor is below Colossus would be cheat. But Namor losing to Sentry isn't something like that, since he never beat that strong character outside of water/being unceacingly hydrated.

2.Thing, Rulk, Hulk, Groot, Cap's shield, Iron Fist and possibly other Avengers. Plus he was shooted with some depowering beam before that. I don't see it as a low-showing or anything, a specially that this time context matters, since Thanos was highly suprised.

3.Odin had to use Gungnir too concentrate his energy, which leads me to conclusion that he couldn't hurt him without it.

I still don't see a reason to belive that Thanos will lose this battle.

#72 Posted by SC (13341 posts) - - Show Bio

Going back to Glory instance, Thor was amped by prayers, where there has been few references of Thor's power level changing because of prayers, even way back in 40s where he looked completely different under Venus issues, you dont see many Thor issue where Thor himself attributes his victory to power gained from such amp. Addressing Surtur point, which is something i brought up rather than you, Thor killed him using the shadow of a twilight sword, something he doesnt normally have access to and likely will not have anytime soon either (he appreantly died in Age of Ultron 03 off panel, not sure how that fits into the chronology). If a victory is attributed , in a substantial part to an extrenal amp or device that a character normally doesnt have access to, i think its reasonable to separate those from his other appearances.

Any who do that commit the fallacy of either-or fallacy regardless of discussion anywhere. The implication is that you fights won on character are distinguishable from those won on plot instead of a much more deeper and complicated overlap with more factors. Abilities and weapons much like characters are fictional components so its still arguing consistency, which is valid. Arguing consistency is a very valid and sound way to argue, but nor creating an either or situation. Thor was amped by prayers, can you say by how much or whether it was a metaphorical boost or psychological boost? Thor gets amped by adrenaline as well so is that plot or in character? Does it have to be outright stated that Thor's physiology has to allow for adrenaline to naturally "amp" him? How do you actually define and distinguish the terms you use here and whether you attribute correctly? Sure once you actually credibly establish the answers to the questions I raise its reasonable to separate otherwise its a matter of weighing up the evidence and admitting the amount of room for error rather than asserting based on subjective understanding failing to consider the alternatives. Then its not reasonable at all.

Fair enough, its what you genuinely believe i understand. I will however try to answer or at least give my opinion on things asked 1. Do i think Thor and Thing knock down Thanos with relative ease?

Yes i do, they two joined force, landed a good hit, Thanos dropped on the ground. Neither of the 2 character seem overly stressed in doing so , nor did this act of dropping him took them substantive amount of time. 3 panels Thanos is on the ground, so i maintain relative ease. 2. Couldnt they do it over and over again?

If Thanos decides not to attack, sure why not. The difference is Thanos did decide to attack, firstly with his eye beams that knocked both of them on the ground, Thing was no longer capable of standing up, Thor was although he looked pretty hurt. Then a second cosmic blast and Thor was down. 3. What do i mean by scans? Pages in comics. Thor was down for about 5 pages (dont know the exact number of pages as i do not have the complete issue with me, just the scans of them fighting, i however know than after 2 of them were likely knocked out, Spiderman got help from the abstracts, who manipulated Spiderman into freeing Warlock, who then turned Thanos into stone, it was only then we see Thor get up even then not in the best of shape)

If Thor wasnt actually knocked out, or at the least seriously stunned, you wouldnt expect a warrior born to let his friends struggle against Thanos i would believe, nor is Thor of a nature to sit down on the ground waiting for someone else to finish the fight for him. 4. Down means beat down? Down as in lying on the floor unable to add anything to the fight anymore, despite Avengers altogether being in trouble against Thanos alone , before Warlock turned Thanos into stone.

Okay we use different words/terms for different actions. If your assertion that a character can do something with relative easy contingent on another characters allowing them, then why would Thanos allow them to knock him down at all? To me, landing a good hit is not the same as knocking down with relative ease. To use the term relative ease would be better used as their ability to actually perform. If a person can only do something with ease based on another allowing them then that is not with relative ease. This would be important because it also questions how you use the term fairly and consistently with characters. Your own argument gets a bit twisty here because now Thor and Things action is dependent on Thanos willing, which is reasonable in some contexts but then there is no explanation as far as Thor and Things ability to affect what Thanos does. "Could Thanos eventually beat Thor and Thing - if Thor and Thing decide not to act in this certain way then sure why not?" basically its another oversimplification because there is overlap between intent and execution for all characters. They two aren't the same and not all actions or intent are equal either.

Your reasoning for likely knocked out? Its just a bit of a funny phrasing - sort of like assumptive fact. What is your reasoning behind the assertion of likely knocked out? The panel said Thor was knocked out? Ah see, lying down hurt and lying down knocked out are not the same thing and hence argument that a character would allow friends to be hurt - so therefore must be knocked out is an oversimplification. I am not saying your not being unreasonable, I am just disputing your ease of the term "relatively with ease" - to me if it was relatively with ease it could be clear as day and not based on subjective reasoning. Even if its good reasoning. Sounds like a lot of factors to consider. Oh and ironically still using the example with Thing. Oh you said in your post "five scans" later - but scans are not the same thing as pages. Anyway after these two paragraphs we would have to argue semantics first before actually talking about anything comic book related. I am game for such a conversation. Just if we are applying terms/definitions differently no headway would be made, first we both be on the same page as to what constitutes such things as "relatively with ease" so on.

You misunderstand my intent, i was not trying to saw Thing is on leagues with any of the people above, but then Thanos can in fact fight with more than one character at any time, and the number advantage isnt an outright win against Thanos. If Thanos can stun Thor and Thing together with a blast to a point none of them are any longer capable of making an impact in a fight , and this takes place before Thanos stats were officially improved after Death's resurrection , i think one can ague team will have the same problem.

Thanos could reasonably just mind control one of them to fighting others, his is pretty accomplished telepath, not sure how much his bloodlust will prevent him from doing that. And about the retcon , i believed it was in Marvel Age interview which actually is an official publication, but now i know i was wrong, coz the last issue of marvel age was published before Avengers: Celestial Quest. I cant recall on top of the head where the reason is given, but if anyone is interested on where the retcon occurs, its in 2 places, once during Infinity Abyss 2 and once during Thanos 01.

Then I am not sure why you are telling me this, I know Thanos can fight more than one person, anything can interact with multiples, but the specifics of those multiples will play a relative factor to the ability to interact with. Nor am I saying numbers advantage is an automatic advantage, that would be a lazy argument. If Thanos was in a fight with Living Tribunal, Death and Presence then the numbers advantage isn't an outright win against Thanos either, the power advantage among other factors that would be, so its the structure of the argument that needs clarification. Oh and naturally following that can't dismiss numbers advantage 'outright' just because of situations where numbers are a factor but other things like power aren't similar. Lots of factors need to be considered.

Using an argument that Thanos can stun Thor and Thing etc that way is unreasonable, because it creates a situation where if you take any action of any character ever and reason that they can just do that attack it will lead to this result. It would be saying that Thor and Thing should just keep flipping Thanos over and over and never give him a chance to attack. So using one moment or action and overestimating its ability to replicate without failure or opposition. Also about applying the term relative ease to such an action. Its sort of like Thor and his attacks against certain characters - oh well if he did what he did against character XYZ then he could just - but its not that simple.

I think one can argue that the team could have the same problem, the problem is arguing whether that is the best argument and the basis for that argument to be superior to conflicting arguments. I also agree as far as Thanos telepathy potentially playing a card here but its so inconsistent without factoring in bloodlust adding that just yeah - alongside from divide and conquer (evasive teleportation and creating distance etc) I think telepathy on one character to help take out another could definitely improve Thanos odds.

Thanks for additional context on retcon! ^_^

Moderator
#73 Posted by laflux (17548 posts) - - Show Bio

Thanos Rising 01, thats a different issue which just came out yesterday).

What Thanos Rising came out yesterday.

*Quickly runs off to Comixology*

#74 Posted by SC (13341 posts) - - Show Bio

@czarny_samael666 said:

Thats not my logic though, thats your understanding of it. If you don't comprehend my logic thats okay, but don't try to speak of what mine is, its just an incredibly lazy and disingenuous argument to use. To you feats are the only thing that can tell you who wins a battle, to me a lot of things can tell you who probably could win the battle. So like i said in my first reply, different standards of evidence argument and reason here.

Nah, size of planet, mass, density, movement and trajectory through space, ease of destruction, method of destruction, motivation behind destruction, all change the objective value of the feat, with relative impressiveness. Even definition of a planet. So here is just one example where the validity of your point unfortunately doesn't measure up to the application of my points. If a character is fictional then they possess limitless range of abilities and actions. Trying to sell the idea that there is nothing to suggest what they could do based on your extremely limited options is fallacious. The premise is unsound so I don't even need top provide a counter since the conclusion is false.

You actually don't bring any reason why Thanos should lose this battle or be hurt by his enemies.

Thats because I don't have to provide a reason to defend my previous stance, nor point out the faults in arguments thrown my way. Also may not be operating under the idea that its a win or lose situation, but a majority average. Which is different from trying to assert Thanos would lose.

Using one moment to prove anything especially as far as fiction would be a cheat, but not because of things like PIS but because of real life logic as far as truth, knowledge so on. Presuppositions and such, strength of claims, validity, soundness and other boring stuff. Its actually rather hard to prove things, especially as far as open conditions with no real clear objective attempting to be proven. Especially when dealing with entities acting of various accords with multiple variables.

2.Thing, Rulk, Hulk, Groot, Cap's shield, Iron Fist and possibly other Avengers. Plus he was shooted with some depowering beam before that. I don't see it as a low-showing or anything, a specially that this time context matters, since Thanos was highly suprised. 3.Odin had to use Gungnir too concentrate his energy, which leads me to conclusion that he couldn't hurt him without it. I still don't see a reason to belive that Thanos will lose this battle.

Here your first and second points cancel each other out to some extent. With Thanos you turn into an apologist for his showing. He was surprised, he got hit by a "depowerment beam" and other possible reasons to explain his weak showing, but then with Odin you become a skeptic. Odin "had to" and so on. Now if you focused your skeptical abilities against Thanos and or decided to play the apologist for Odin then what? Ultimately just depends on how well your balance your natural biases.

Not seeing a reason to believe something then using that as a basis for asserting that would be an argument from personal incredulity.

Moderator
#75 Posted by czarny_samael666 (17174 posts) - - Show Bio

@sc:

to me a lot of things can tell you who probably could win the battle.

Like? And I hope this is something measurable and comparable...

Nah, size of planet, mass, density, movement and trajectory through space, ease of destruction, method of destruction, motivation behind destruction, all change the objective value of the feat, with relative impressiveness.

Irrlevant, since it is not measurable.

If a character is fictional then they possess limitless range of abilities and actions.

No, they don't. They are limitted to what they already done. Only writers can change them - we can't. And here, we're limitted to our knowledge about them.

Ergo - if they didn't show ability to do something, they can't do it. If they didn't survive something - they won't survive it in battle forum. Each character has to have feat that proves he can do something. It is not debatable, it is only logic that can be used. In other way, we won't be able to give a clear win to any character in any battle, which is ridiculous.

Thats because I don't have to provide a reason to defend my previous stance, nor point out the faults in arguments thrown my way. Also may not be operating under the idea that its a win or lose situation, but a majority average. Which is different from trying to assert Thanos would lose.

All of us have to prove their point. It doesn't matter if You're talking about majority of wins or not.

If You're saying that there is situation (that isn't agaisnt OP or rules of CV) in which Thanos loses, then You have to prove Your point with facts from comics. They are facts to these characters and it is only thing that matters.

Only way to prove them are feats. There is no other way to do it.

It is random encounter, no prep, no outside force affecting either side. No element of suprise. Bloodlust on. Standard eq. Pre-52 versions of DC team, current Thanos.

Using one moment to prove anything especially as far as fiction would be a cheat, but not because of things like PIS but because of real life logic as far as truth, knowledge so on. Presuppositions and such, strength of claims, validity, soundness and other boring stuff. Its actually rather hard to prove things, especially as far as open conditions with no real clear objective attempting to be proven. Especially when dealing with entities acting of various accords with multiple variables.

Of course it can be proven - if there is no proof of something, it doesn't exist for us. You can't say that it is possible that it could exist. At least, not here. We can talk about possible limit to Sentry all day, but it doesn't change the fact that here, You have to prove that his level of power.

Maybe You're not on battle forum too often, but it is how it works here. Everything outside of it is pretty much against the rules. Maybe battle forum isn't something attractive for You, since there have to be proof for any claim and feat proving certain behavior and power level, but it is how it works.

Here your first and second points cancel each other out to some extent. With Thanos you turn into an apologist for his showing. He was surprised, he got hit by a "depowerment beam" and other possible reasons to explain his weak showing, but then with Odin you become a skeptic. Odin "had to" and so on. Now if you focused your skeptical abilities against Thanos and or decided to play the apologist for Odin then what? Ultimately just depends on how well your balance your natural biases.

Not at all.

Thanos was suprised - fact. Odin tried attack Thanos without using Gugnir - fact. Thanos wasn't defeated in either situation - fact.

Odin had to do it, because he failed accomplish his goal. Even then, he still couldn't KO Thanos.

#76 Posted by Floopay (8721 posts) - - Show Bio

@killemall: Meh, I was close enough. I haven't even OWNED my Quasar collection for over 6 years, so it's been awhile. :P

Thanks for reading,

Floopay

#77 Posted by Betatesthighlander1 (7487 posts) - - Show Bio

@killemall: he killed Thanos in the second SS series

#78 Posted by reikai (4660 posts) - - Show Bio

Horrible pics. Also, as explained, that Thanos was a fake. And was used to deceive the Surfer so he'd stop meddling.

#79 Posted by czarny_samael666 (17174 posts) - - Show Bio

@betatesthighlander1:

It wasn't real Thanos. Surfer couldn't even scratch real Thanos in the same story. But Thanos wanted to stay in dark, so no one would follow him in his quest for Infnity Gems, so he fake his own death.

#80 Posted by Betatesthighlander1 (7487 posts) - - Show Bio
#81 Edited by czarny_samael666 (17174 posts) - - Show Bio

@czarny_samael666: @reikai: I can find no reference to either of the Thanos in either appearance being a clone

IIRC it wasn't even a clone. But for sure it wasn't real Thanos. 100% sure. There was whole comic about it, Surfer later discovered that Thanos faked his death. Warlock even talks about it after IG saga.

#82 Posted by Erick_Williams (758 posts) - - Show Bio

LOBO ALONE WOULD GIVE HIM A LOT OF TROUBLE

#83 Posted by Betatesthighlander1 (7487 posts) - - Show Bio
#84 Posted by reikai (4660 posts) - - Show Bio

Thanos in the Marvel/DC crossover was beating the crap out of Lobo and Cap Marvel at the same time quite easily. I see no reason to believe this lineup will fare any better than the entire teams of people who've all failed.

#85 Posted by czarny_samael666 (17174 posts) - - Show Bio
#86 Posted by dccomicsrule2011 (26848 posts) - - Show Bio

@reikai said:

Thanos in the Marvel/DC crossover was beating the crap out of Lobo and Cap Marvel at the same time quite easily. I see no reason to believe this lineup will fare any better than the entire teams of people who've all failed.

DC/Marvel comic is not even canon

Online
#87 Posted by reikai (4660 posts) - - Show Bio

DC/Marvel comic is not even canon

No, it isn't. But it's the same as Thanos backhanding the Hulk and Drax and manhandling Thor and the Thing. You can't really expect a group of bricks to do any better than another group of bricks who've all had their collective backends handed to them by Thanos.

#88 Posted by Killemall (18607 posts) - - Show Bio

@betatesthighlander1: As a matter of fact Surfer has never beaten nor killed Thanos, that was Thanos tricking Surfer to thinking he killed him.

Here are the complere set of scans

#89 Posted by SC (13341 posts) - - Show Bio

@czarny_samael666 said:

Like? And I hope this is something measurable and comparable...Irrlevant, since it is not measurable.No, they don't. They are limitted to what they already done. Only writers can change them - we can't. And here, we're limitted to our knowledge about them.Ergo - if they didn't show ability to do something, they can't do it. If they didn't survive something - they won't survive it in battle forum. Each character has to have feat that proves he can do something. It is not debatable, it is only logic that can be used. In other way, we won't be able to give a clear win to any character in any battle, which is ridiculous. All of us have to prove their point. It doesn't matter if You're talking about majority of wins or not. If You're saying that there is situation (that isn't agaisnt OP or rules of CV) in which Thanos loses, then You have to prove Your point with facts from comics. They are facts to these characters and it is only thing that matters. Only way to prove them are feats. There is no other way to do it. It is random encounter, no prep, no outside force affecting either side. No element of suprise. Bloodlust on. Standard eq. Pre-52 versions of DC team, current Thanos. Of course it can be proven - if there is no proof of something, it doesn't exist for us. You can't say that it is possible that it could exist. At least, not here. We can talk about possible limit to Sentry all day, but it doesn't change the fact that here, You have to prove that his level of power. Maybe You're not on battle forum too often, but it is how it works here. Everything outside of it is pretty much against the rules. Maybe battle forum isn't something attractive for You, since there have to be proof for any claim and feat proving certain behavior and power level, but it is how it works. Not at all. Thanos was suprised - fact. Odin tried attack Thanos without using Gugnir - fact. Thanos wasn't defeated in either situation - fact. Odin had to do it, because he failed accomplish his goal. Even then, he still couldn't KO Thanos.

Everything is measurable or comparable, so you have no need to despair. You can what I said is irrelevant or pink, or a flying pig, your assertion has no foundation or validity. Now you made the claim to me that the destruction of a planet is an objective feat. Now by you telling us that such things are not measurable, you prove that such feats are NOT objective. Incidentally such things are measurable, but en entity or objects capacity to be measured does not mean that one will know those measurements. Like I said before this is a variation of a fallacious argument. If I do not know something then it is etc (in this case measurable)

So you either inadvertently used your counter to one of my points to dismiss your own original point or you are not using the word objective in its traditional sense. Then again do you know what the word possess means? I don't mean that with any snakiness intended, but much like the differences between the words apathetic and pathetic, you seem to be drawn inaccurate conclusions about the points I make leading you down odd tangents that seemingly have nothing to do with what I said.

Fans can actually help change stuff all the time, if you know the right places to talk about these things online, so aside from an argument from personal incredulity again, you provide another false dichotomy. If Black Panther can eat an apple, we do not have to see him eat a pear to know he probably could. We know Black Panther is human and that provides a strong basis for what a normal healthy human can do. Most normal healthy humans not only can eat but require eating. Its not an absolute though, some may have allergic reactions to pears. Since Panther is fictional and I have not read all his comics I do not know if he has eaten a pear or whether he has alluded to having allergies as far as pears. Also because absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, even if no writer has ever considered explaining in a comic that Black Panther is or isn't allergic to pears doesn't mean if I assume he is or isn't I would be correct. I could make an educated guess or reasoned guess though. In fact if I may be so bold, I'd assert that its highly unlikely that Black Panther is not allergic to pears inspire of lacking a scan clearly indicating he isn't. The process I just applied to Black Panther can generally be applied to any character or situation naturally with more factors like to be added or subtracted from the scenario.

Oh I have proved/proven my point multiple times, you just can't seem to grasp what it is, and it doesn't seem to be points that you care about with is something only you can sort with yourself, which is again okay and is again why I asked you in the first reply to actually reexplain what you thought my argument was before you attempted refuting it which lead to you expressly not being able to explain what my argument was but attempting to refute it anyway. So it sort of seems that at this point you are just reacting and trying to find ways to disagree with me without actually being sure what I am saying. Also I am not sure if you know what the word/term prove is, because no one around here proves anything, they attempt to prove, because the only real proof you can provide has to do with reality. You can establish truths about fiction but they are privy to and are often changed and changed subjectively not objectively which means you can't establish the required objective truths to use as a basis to prove things. Only establish as consistent and true or probable or provable to a set limit but never actually outright provable.

I am saying there are limitless situations with limitless potential as far to what can happen. You actually expect me to try and prove each of them? I can establish with logic easily that, situation with such multiple variables is inherently open to multiple results based on tweaking of such variables. Proven. Now you try and prove otherwise and not attempt to prove, if you are going to actually attempt to insist others prove their points by only using 'facts' from a medium from which to do so is virtually impossible, that would be great, unless you misunderstand what I am asking or what you asked?

Now you also bordering on the fallacy of throwing around the word fact. Just asserting something is a fact doesn't make it a fact. This is pretty common in arguments when a person is frustrated and so seeks to establish short cuts by establishing they have facts and therefore authority and therefore to disagree with them is to disagree with established facts. Its fallacious because I mean just think of the potential? Okay the following argument is satirical and only as a joke okay? Okay I am right because its a fact that I can never be wrong. You know its a fact because everything I say is the truth, and that is also a fact. Although it is a fact I just made a circular argument, its also a fact I invented the circle and arguing and so i have the authority to impose on when those words can be used fact. Based on those facts I just scored 230 Gil and 300o experience points.

Maybe you don't actually engage in discussions and arguments of reason, evidence, proof and logic outside battle forums but thats how those terms are used in real life, and I use to spend a lot of time in Battles and Versus and Rumbles in fact at one time I was a "Battles Mod" at CV's Distinguished Competition so I know all about fallacious arguments, and short cut arguments and arguments from peer pressure and arguments from ignorance and arguments where posters try to project and impose their own limited understandings of "logic" fact" "prove" on to other posters without actually having a good grasp on what those concepts and terms actually mean, which is perfectly okay. The key part that makes it okay is willingness and capacity to understand that. I am not here trying to tell you what to do, because I recognize that you prefer a more black and white view of such arguments and you operate with different standards of evidence than I do, like you seem to believe all planets are the same size or such things are unmeasurable or something along those lines, where as I have stricter and harder rules for the use of words like proof, and an understanding of the great variety and diversity of planets that inherently makes destroying a planet a subjective practice. I recognize this difference and I have not, nor will I tell you to try and appease my sense of logic and argument because you are well within your right and grounds to operate as you do, and i have no problem with that. The reason why we are disagreeing here is either because you have some motivation it seems to try and get me to adhere to your standards, but I am sorry, I find them to simple and I will not comply with them. Except you seem to believe your standard is the default standard and while it might be popular around here and even almost synonymous with the rules of Battles, if you or those rules seek to make claims about logic and proof then you are dealing with meaning, definition and reality hence why I am also within my grounds to make the arguments I make. Which is also to say that this tangent of our discussion is kind of boring, and you keep introducing new elements to it for some reason whenever I dismiss one of your other arguments, are you trying to get the last word or something?

Here let me try my best to shorten discussion, you made the claim there are objective feats in comics correct? I disagree, I assert they all have a subjective aspect to them, so perhaps if you wish to, you should ignore everything else I say and just try to think of one example of one objective feat in comics and then I can tell you why its not that objective at all. Just so you know, I am aware there are of course relatively objective feats in comics. Ms Marvel picks up ten ton weights with one hand, thats a relatively objective feat, as far as we know its Ms Marvel, and we know she lifted something, and we know that that weight was almost probably ten tons to the ton, probably kg. However we don't know a lot about other factors that inherently add subjectivity to her feat. The exact ease of the feat, her motivation to lift the weight, her balance, her mood, her energy levels, what exactly the feat is demonstrating (a combination of things overlapping) so just because we know that the weight is objective doesn't mean the feat is objective. Relatively more objective than if she were to do the same with a ten ton looking rock perhaps but otherwise.

Okay so you assert that Thanos was surprised? Even though Thanos and company were heading directly to met Odin. Thanos and company were engaged in battle with several Asgardians, Thanos was of the belief that his company would fall in battle to the Asgardians requiring his involvement Thanos himself beating and defeating many Asgardians by his own hand. Thanos knowing the best way to get their outcome was to actually get to Odin himself. Thanos actually seeing Odin one shot Drax, Thanos even telling Warlock to forget reasoning with Odin as both were standing directly in front of him. That Thanos you are trying to claim was surprised? This is what I mean by you applying an apologist stance to Thanos. You make an assertion and you assert its a fact in one fell swoop. You neglect to even actually give reasoning for your assertion to paint it as credible, you appear to just believe tacking on that it is a fact will satisfy a persons to evaluate and weigh up reasoning and evidence. So what evidence do you actually present to establish the credibility or your factual claim? One better why don't you prove that Thanos was surprised?

This is where we differ again, because I won't try to sell the idea the reasoning behind my assertion will make it a fact. Hence I can't prove it and for me to attempt to would make me dishonest or ignorant I simply offer my reasoning for why Thanos probably wouldn't have been surprised. He was heading to Odin and aware aware of heading to Odin for sometime and he and his company were beating up and smacking around Asgardians the ruler of which is Odin, and Thanos even told company (Warlock) that reasoning at that stage would be insufficient and to retreat the area - all while Odin was approaching them and attacking/defeating his companion Drax BUT - Thanos was surprised? So forgive me of being skeptical of your claim but if your philosophy is that one must "prove" their points I look forward to you trying to prove this point, let alone dismiss my reasonings that have done an alright job of establishing the strength of basis to assert that Thanos was probably not surprised without the flaw of trying to present itself as the only viable or valid probability.

Fact: Information pertained as real. Information with a basis in reality and truth. An actual occurrence. The truth.

Asserting "Odin tried to attack Thanos without Gungnir" as a fact is all sorts of funky, because Odin didn't just try to attack, but he actually did attack, so your wording tries to assert multiple claims as factual, why not actually just make one assertion/claim and then refer to that as a fact? Then next point why don't you tell us Odin's goal so we can test the validity of your claims okay? Since you seem to be making a lot of assertions and points based on assertions that haven't been reasoned let alone proven. Oh and also try and prove that Odin actually needs to use Gungir instead of just preferring it to channel his own power. Oh and prove as well that Thanos was not using external technology during that encounter to because he needed it and remember don't try and invoke argument from personal incredulity, its fallacious.

Moderator
#90 Edited by Betatesthighlander1 (7487 posts) - - Show Bio

@killemall: okay, but people like Hulk and Drax (usually accepted as weaker than the Surfer) have hurt him before

@czarny_samael666: Lobo has went toe-to-toe with the likes of superman

also, need i commemorate this?

#91 Posted by Killemall (18607 posts) - - Show Bio

@killemall: okay, but people like Hulk and Drax (usually accepted as weaker than the Surfer) have hurt him before

@czarny_samael666: Lobo has went toe-to-toe with the likes of superman

also, need i commemorate this?

Not sure if i understand what you are trying to say.

The first scan is from Annihilation, and its not Drax strength or durability that led him to harming Thanos it was the fact that he was created specifically to destroy Thanos that allowed him to bypass his defense. The writer in one of the forum answer it saying you can see Drax's radiating a strange aura around him, which if you look closely at the scan you notice he does have an aura. I have however never seen this been stated in comics or bio, so its upto you how much you wanna accept a writers word stated on formspring.

Thanos was also distracted because he was trying to free Galactus and was attacked by Drax from behind.

The second 2 scans, not sure if you knew, is from Infinity Gauntlet saga. Thanos had the infinity gauntlet and was willingly putting on a show for Lady Death. That being said I am not saying Thanos cant be hurt but that the he cant normally be put down (as in KOed easily), also if its helps the very next scans Thanos turns Thor into glass. Given he has IG in his hand it was pretty obvious, everyone know how Thanos lost his gauntlet to Nebula and was never beaten by heroes.

So in regards to Hulk and Drax vs Thanos scan you posted, here is what happened next page, Drax got swatted away like a fly and Hulk got shrunk to being smaller than a mouse.

In regards Thor vs Thanos scan you posted ,here is what happened next page, Thor got turned into glass and blown into peices

But those are Thanos with IG, albiet only using power gem at the time.

In regards to NYPD vs Thanos, its from Spidey Super Stories which i am not 100% is even meant to be canon, after all thats one of that incident that has neither been retconned as being a Thanoside, nor does it appear in any of Thanos bios or a whole book of Thanos history called Thanos Sourcebook.

And when asked this is what Jim Starlin had to say about that the incident to an interview

I dont believe in telling people what to think, if you wanna see Thanos durability feats let me know i can post them (they are all in the thread i gave you the link to), you wanna see example of him using TP there are there too, if you wanna discuss any feats i can discuss but i'll let you make your own opinion.

Drax and NYPD incident is really , really not a representative of what Thanos is normally like in comics.

#92 Edited by reikai (4660 posts) - - Show Bio

What happened after Thanos lost the IG (intentionally) and Hulk&Drax tried to grab him?

This happened.

And this is the most a Warrior-madness induced Power Gem enraged Thor could do to Thanos.

Pre-IG Saga, Thanos was already stronger than the Heroes. He manhandled them pretty easily.

And let's not forget that if Thanos wanted to drop someone with a mental assault, he'd just go ahead and do so.

#93 Posted by Lone_Wolf_and_Cub (5297 posts) - - Show Bio

I love when people show either out of context scans or lowball scans. Pretty sure new 52 Lobo struggled with Deathstroke. See I can lowball too.

#94 Posted by SHARKBEARAGATOR (1667 posts) - - Show Bio
#95 Posted by VenomousTaco (1301 posts) - - Show Bio

This team is too much even for Thanos.

#96 Posted by reaverlation (17054 posts) - - Show Bio

Thanos

#97 Posted by kidman560 (7578 posts) - - Show Bio

Yeah Thanos

#98 Posted by green_skaar (4716 posts) - - Show Bio

Thanos

#99 Posted by DeathandGrim (2078 posts) - - Show Bio

Team

#100 Posted by Lone_Wolf_and_Cub (5297 posts) - - Show Bio

Thanos still and always will stomp.