@Rumble Man said:
@Laurcus: yeah, that sums it up
one guy playing sims, and another guy with a gun monitoring a bunch of guys playing sims
Hahahahaha. I'm using that during my next D&D adventure.
The dagger given by Mehrunes Dagon (Mehrunes Razor) can kill anything. So, Dohvahkiin just has to slow time and use freezing breath.
I think Dohvahkiin should be able to kill all creatures who do not have implicit immortality (eg a god like Hercules). I just don't think the Razor will work on immortals ( I am not sure though, has anyone killed a dragon with the dagger?)
I think Dovahkiin can kill Superman (in character). Slow time, freeze breath and hope that the dagger can kill him within the few seconds that it will take for Superman to break free.
My roommate got the Razor to proc on Alduin on the first hit as soon as the final boss fight started. :) We laughed.
@Rumble Man said:
@Killemall:Not sure i misunderstand so just dont agree.
Firstly, just to make sure i understand, firstly you are saying a being who can affect more than 1 universe (in the same moment in time) would be considered multiversal? Because multiverse is supposed to have infinite number of universe, just because you can affect more than one should not make you multiversal, perhaps universe + in terms of power.
Marvel actually has a whole lot of universe + powerhouse, but the way i see it, if you can affected an entire multiverse with your power, and not just more than one universe, then you are multiversal in terms of power, marvel has very very few of those.
Well multi in general means more than one, not infinite (that should be omni[all]verse or mega[million]verse) in that case two is a bare minimum to be considered multiversal.
Marvel has an omniverse
From my research and understanding, a multiverse are collections of universes that are loosely clones or doppelgangers of each other. This makes sense.
Marvel in a sense does have a Omniverse as the story line Kick-Ass isn't related to the Marvel comics at all.
In a larger view, DC, Marvel, Image, etc could all be considered a part of some sort of Omniverse.
To give another example of a multiverse and multiversal beings; Dungeons and Dragons. Every campaign setting added to the game is also added to the D&D multiverse. There's a hierarchy of gods, where quasi deities, demigods, lesser deities and intermediate deities are more like extremely powerful mortals. Then you have the greater deities that posses basically a pseudo omnipotence, where they have the ability to do anything but they can cancel each other's powers out. So if a greater deity was to fight a mortal, he could will himself to have infinite strength, but if a greater deity fought another greater deity they would both only be able to lift like 10-50 tons. Then above them you have the over deity. The over deity watches over the universe, which appears as a tiny glass sphere floating in a void to it. In this universe, the over deity is supreme, even able to treat the greater deities as if they were mortals, able to will them out of existence with a thought for example. And then there's one above the over deities of the various universes. He's called The Being of Pure Light, and he watches over all the glass spheres at once, basically keeping tabs on the over deities making sure that they run their respective universes correctly and such.
I gotta give it to the dwarves. The elves aren't as powerful as they used to be, in fact, that's kind of one of the main points of their story.
The best way I can quantify this is to compare Legolas and Gimli. As has already been pointed out, Gimli won their contest at Helm's Deep. He was shown to be more effective in warfare. The thing is though, Legolas is an elf prince. Gimli, while awesome, isn't really anything special amongst dwarves. He's not royalty, or even some kind of grand warlord. He's just the son of a dwarf that served Thorin. If he can outfight an elf prince, that really shows just how much the elves have declined.
@Rumble Man said:
@Cybrilious4: I wouldn't say he has the power level of the sun... The Sun could not destroy the universe, only a solar system at best. You don't need a Super Saiyan 2 to destroy a universe... a strong Super Saiyan 1 will suffice. Superman Prime and Gold Superman Prime and probably Kal Kent One Million can destroy a universe. Or more, but I think one at a time. Meaning the strongest forms of Super Saiyan, right before Super Saiyan 2, are easily stronger than any Superman. Including Gold, Prime, Kal Kent One Million, All Star, Beyond, and the Original Earth One Superman (who was stronger than the original Earth 2 Superman, who was the original Superman to appear in comics).
WTF did I just read?
my thoughts exactly guy.
Kinda $#!% is this???
DBZ Maths people, DBZ maths
There's no math in that post, just baseless assumptions.
@Rumble Man said:
@Laurcus:1st Bolded part: Instances of magic or other non-ki based abilities. They don't count because at that point you're comparing apples to oranges, not apples to apples.
Guldo is psychic by the way, not magicHow does not showing proof of something make it hyperbole? Do you even know what hyperbole is, or are you just throwing around a buzz word?
Is WB a world buster?
exaggerated statements or claims not meant to be taken literally.
In context he could say solar bust as to brag about his newfound powers to the Z fighters (cell's case)2nd Bolded part: Ki control. Lack of collateral damage from a focused attack is not proof that collateral damage is impossible when an attack is intentionally spread for maximum area of effect. This is another argument from ignorance where you're saying the proposition is false because it has not been proven true.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance
On the contrary I am debating agains these two...
- Appeal to Authority - This type of fallacy is also referred to as Argumentum ad Verecundia (argument from modesty). In this case, rather than focusing on the merits of an argument, the arguer will try to attach their argument to a person of authority in an attempt to give credence to their argument.For example: “Well, Isaac Newton believed in Alchemy, do you think you know more than Isaac Newton?”
- Appeal to Popular Opinion - This type of appeal is when someone claims that an idea or belief is true simply because it is what most people believe.For example: “Lots of people bought this album, so it must be good.”
Same can be applied to you
There is no evidence against starbust
There is no evidence for starbust
I haven't used appeal to popular opinion. Maybe other people have, but I don't give a hoot what the majority of people think.
Appeal to authority actually kind of works when talking about canon, since the author is the one that decides canon. *incoming analogy that I hope makes sense*. Suppose that a math instructor writes an equation, x=2. Someone then argues, x doesn't equal 2. They would be wrong, because the instructor made the equation, and therefore his set value for it is the correct one. It is then not fallacious to say that the answer is x=2 because the instructor says so. It's like arguing rules with someone that can change the rules to be whatever they want. Toriyama determines canon, so at best you could argue that he retconned this into existing.
Note btw, that when I say Cell can destroy a solar system, I am in no way referring to his statement that he can. That could be hyperbole for a number of reasons. I am referring to a statement by Toriyama that says Cell can blow up a solar system.
My argument for Cell being able to bust a solar system isn't quite that simple. My argument is more like, there is evidence for starbust, (Toriyama's statement) there is no evidence against starbust, therefore starbust.
I'm aware that Guldo is psychic, hence why I said magic or other non-ki based abilities.
@Rumble Man said:
feats alone make no sense without canon statements backing it.
Disagree, the reverse also applies, like creator pushing own opinions without visual evidence. Sad problem happened to MJJ where he is supposedly an omniversal threat where they had to erase an entire universe to keep a 'weaker' version of himself from wreaking havoc. Other writers never took notice.also we never seen Android 17 destroy a planet, but he's more powerful than planet busters by far. never seen Goku destroy a planet but at his weakest SSJ was more powerful than Frieza who blowed in base form planet Vegeta that is 10 times planet earth. does that mean Goku can't blow a planet? does that mean Android 17 can't blow a planet?
Powerscaling, does that mean everybody above kid goku can withstand akuman's sin beam which can instakill bad guys, does that mean anyone above guldo can do time-stop while holding breath, does that mean anybody above buu can do candy beam?
nowe never seen Surtur or Odin destroy a galaxy, but it's only mentioned that he has power to do it, does that mean he can't? of course not. Surtur and Odin are widely recognized galaxy busters.
IIRC there is an on panel feat on that, but I have to dig up scans or scavenge them on a respect thread.
Statementneed feats, I believe cell can do what frieza can since he absorbed his cells during time travel in the manga. But as of the 'how' he can do it is the big open question. (Never mentioned, no character explicitly shown to star-bust), unless it is destroying the system by nuking one planet at a time.so we have common sense, canon statement, and canon factconfirming that. and no contradictionto that at all. so any suggestion that it's hyperbol is completly wrong and speculative.
It kinda is hyperbole, since he never shows his starbusting kamehameha, and even if it were then the damage to the surrounding area from SSJ2 gohan and his kamehameha collision would surely damage the planet beyond irreparable state. Lets see Vegeta's lesser final flash with planetbust capabilities, explicitly mentioned where he had to 'shrink' it to prevent a big explosion. It shows the beam escaping the atmospere and scraping the planet. Cell has never shown a move that big.
Seeing is believing
1st Bolded part: Instances of magic or other non-ki based abilities. They don't count because at that point you're comparing apples to oranges, not apples to apples.
How does not showing proof of something make it hyperbole? Do you even know what hyperbole is, or are you just throwing around a buzz word?
2nd Bolded part: Ki control. Lack of collateral damage from a focused attack is not proof that collateral damage is impossible when an attack is intentionally spread for maximum area of effect. This is another argument from ignorance where you're saying the proposition is false because it has not been proven true.
@Decoy Elite said:
Power level logic. I get power levels are a thing, I get they seem like a good thing for measuring DBZ characters strength.
But it should never be the cornerstone of a argument. The author did not make power levels as some perfect power scaling thing, it was just science fiction numbers that went up, they mean nothing in a worthwhile debate.
I disagree. Both extremes are wrong. They don't mean nothing, but they don't mean everything either. There's a middle ground that can be found there that doesn't rely on asinine assumptions or willful ignorance from either side.
Major mismatch. The mostly featless guy that said Sauron would kill him if he had the ring, vs Darkseid.
I think singing a song and scaring away a dark spirit is a feat.
Him defeating the Barrow Wight is hardly a useful feat in a fight like this.
Use your keyboard!
Log in to comment