monarch_prime's forum posts

#1 Posted by monarch_prime (462 posts) - - Show Bio

@monarch_prime: @monarch_prime: @monarch_prime:

And what association says it is just attack like idiot, don't think. Tell me what is this all wise mural that verifyes this? Where does that say about it? There is like 2/3 of the battles in CV that goes with bloodlusted. Are all those battles really in same reason of that they just rush in to get facehammered by others because they are too irrational to think?

You still haven't profound what the bloodlust is officially, just your oppinion. Morals off might make them use the abbliities quck and effienct but still bloodlust is desire to kill not to go mindless, and mostly that desire is emotional from other case like love or hate. That is not the case in here. It is just and pure desire to kill. It maybe can derange the character or not, but in these battles it is not the point.

Mine is an opinion while yours is what, factual? I gave examples of what bloodlust is, you're yet to provide any to suggest that it isn't. Show me a clear differentiation between Morals off and bloodlust then. Okay let me just use this crude example. You're going to kill someone in front of you in a crowd, in this situation you lack any morals. You observe their actions, look for an opening when their alone and then you take your chance. Say you want to kill the same person while bloodlusted, completely pissed off at the very sight of them. You don't want to observe what their doing, you just wanna bash their face in so you grab what's closest to you without thinking of the consequences and you proceed to bash said face in. Only after the act do you appreciate what you've done, but during the impulse, you just wanted to bash their face in. Get it?

#2 Posted by monarch_prime (462 posts) - - Show Bio

@monarch_prime said:

@hiddenlight said:

@direflash said:

@monarch_prime:

So tell me, what is the official description of bloodlusted? I think morals off character is just a character that does not care any codes what he has, so he just kills the opponent with no remorse, like a villain does. So is bloodlust just a depower in these fights to make them mindless numds or what. I mean there is many bloodlust fights out there? Just curious.

It's an "amped" Morals Off. He will try to kill Superman by any means, and as this is Quasar, he will not only drain his solar energy, but his life force too if bloodlusted, and that will not be a problem for him, it's his first move in every single fight and he drained beings and things that packed more energy than Superman will ever have, Ego for instance. That's why people should stop asking for him to be the next opponent of John Stewart.

So it's an "amped" Morals off? Do explain, because morals off is using your abilities without restraint to kill your opponent. If that was the meaning then I don't see a need to differentiate between morals off and bloodlust. And where has Quasar drained life force?

I'm stealing the definition from a fellow Viner:

@i_like_swords:

"Morals off is is in character, but not restricted by ones personal sense of morality. So Spider-Man will punch people as hard as he likes. Batman will pick up a gun and use it. You get the idea. However, the reason it differs from bloodlust is that while bloodlusted, you are trying all-out to kill someone by whatever means you can, completely unrelentless. So while bloodlusted you are out of character."

And for the life-force draining, I have those two instances, and I lost my issue where he drained the phoenix force, essentially, pure Life-Force, literally.

Really? Those are the examples? Wow okay, lets begin then. Firstly concerning Jack of hearts, the energy he attacks with is also what he needs to survive, that's what he means by life force. Read the scan. The energy he attacks with is what Quasar drained from him, that same energy is vital to his metabolism. Without it he would die. That does not give Quasar the ability to outright drain life force from anyone. He can drain the energy they use and since that energy is vital for Jack, that's why he said life force. But that's only for Jack. Draining a GL's energy doesn't kill them, draining Superman's solar energy doesn't kill him, because it is not directly connected to their life like Jack's energy is. Everyone else he has ever drained is the same. Jack was the only one whose life was in danger because that energy is what keeps him alive. He drained his energy, the Zero energy, which is basically his fuel.

"Whatever energy he wields is so vital to his metabolism, I can't tap it without killing him."

Secondly, the only reason he was able to absorb Ego was because of the machine Richards, Stark and Banner made. The machine used the original process, that was used to compress and imprison Ego in the first place. They used the machine to leach Ego from the earth and PROJECT him into a host, not have the host casually absorb him as your claims suggest. The host was simply a containment unit for Ego's essence. He didn't have to absorb anything. Surfer couldn't contain the energy. He tried to store him inside his body and failed, yet Quasar managed it. Why is that you ask? It's simple really, Quasar is connected directly to the Quantum zone, which is as big as a universe. Lots of room for Ego.

And lastly concerning Rachel. He didn't drain the Phoenix Force, he created a funnel to siphon the energy she was attacking with and redirect it at Modred. I really don't know where you got him draining the Phoenix Force from.

A big funnel.

The way people use these scans out of context is amazing.

#4 Posted by monarch_prime (462 posts) - - Show Bio

@direflash: That's what bloodlusted is, not my fault if people use it out of context. If you want a battle where they go all out but still use their abilities to the fullest you stipulate morals off. They'll fight to the best of their abilities without holding back.

#5 Posted by monarch_prime (462 posts) - - Show Bio

@direflash said:

@monarch_prime:

So tell me, what is the official description of bloodlusted? I think morals off character is just a character that does not care any codes what he has, so he just kills the opponent with no remorse, like a villain does. So is bloodlust just a depower in these fights to make them mindless numds or what. I mean there is many bloodlust fights out there? Just curious.

It's an "amped" Morals Off. He will try to kill Superman by any means, and as this is Quasar, he will not only drain his solar energy, but his life force too if bloodlusted, and that will not be a problem for him, it's his first move in every single fight and he drained beings and things that packed more energy than Superman will ever have, Ego for instance. That's why people should stop asking for him to be the next opponent of John Stewart.

So it's an "amped" Morals off? Do explain, because morals off is using your abilities without restraint to kill your opponent. If that was the meaning then I don't see a need to differentiate between morals off and bloodlust. And where has Quasar drained life force?

#6 Posted by monarch_prime (462 posts) - - Show Bio

@direflash: Think about it this way. The description that you gave for bloodlust before is the description for morals off. Morals off is the opponent using their abilities to the fullest in order kill their opponent. Now, if that was the meaning for bloodlust then why would they need to differentiate between morals off and bloodlust? Bloodlust takes it to the next level, like when Superman fought Wonder Woman or Thanos in Guardians of the Galaxy #25. You just attack, you don't think, you don't drain, you just attack. And while this will work well for most characters whose abilities don't require some degree of thought to use them effectively, for someone like Quasar it would be a handicap.

#7 Edited by monarch_prime (462 posts) - - Show Bio

@direflash: I believe you're thinking of morals off instead of bloodlusted. Anyway with a character like Quasar, morals on or off yes his abilities will be used effectively. Bloodlusted, I don't think so.

#8 Posted by monarch_prime (462 posts) - - Show Bio

@direflash: The only thing that changed in Quasar from then and now is his uniform. Wendell is still the same person he's always been. He doesn't really get angry that's why there aren't any more showings of such. Those are the ones where he actually lost his cool, so they are an accurate representation of his character when angry. And to my knowledge not once has an Angry Quasar attempted a drain. That's what bloodlust means going berserk mode, morals off he would use all his abilities to destroy his opponent, but this isn't morals off. Bloodlust is the desire for blood, a desire to kill, and by just being angry Quasar fights physical much less bloodlusted.

#9 Posted by monarch_prime (462 posts) - - Show Bio

In character, yes Quasar can and will beat Superman, by using his cosmic awareness to identify a possible power source and/or simply draining him. His best attribute is thinking in his battles, but this is not the case here, he is bloodlusted, he will not utilize his abilities like an in character Quasar would. Bloodlust does not automatically make a character stronger, one must consider that character's powerset and in what state of mind they best make use of it. Normal Quasar analyses his opponent, so in this scenario bloodlust is a handicap for him.

This is what an angry Quasar does, much less bloodlusted.

So charging a bloodlusted Superman isn't how Quasar is going to win this match. He gets put down hard because of the character stipulation.

#10 Posted by monarch_prime (462 posts) - - Show Bio

@serrure said:

@monarch_prime said:

@sirfizzwhizz said:

@monarch_prime said:

@sirfizzwhizz said:

@guardiandevil83 said:

@serrure: The Supreme that fought Gladiator (Liefields) was imprisoned by a group of Alternate Supreme's for being too violent and unstable in a pocket demension called the Supremacy. He escaped, went on a rampage looking for Moore's version, whom he felt, stole his life. Whenever Supreme is retconned the supremacy is where they are placed. Think Valhalla.

Wow, so much clicked now lol. I thought it read funny, but that makes sense.

so it was Liefields that fought Gladiator, but was looking for the current Moor one then? Did they ever find each other?

(on topic)

Though to be fair for the Omni Man showing, Moors Supreme has some insane feats still that rival New 52 Superman in all areas.

He did find him, when they released him. Then he used silver supremium to de-power them all, becoming the only Supreme. Also the version that fought Omni-Man was Larsen's version.

@guardiandevil83 said:

@monarch_prime: Oh, you're right.

Im confused as hell now...

So Gladiator fought the near Silver Age Superman (aka Larsens) Supreme? And Omni man fought this one too and not Alan Moor's supreme, but fought the same Supreme who fought Gladiator?

No, Gladiator fought Liefeld's Supreme. Omni-Man fought the evil Supreme that was written by Erik Larsen after Moore's run finished. Larsen's version was supposed to be a representation of Leifeld's version. The evil one. Moore's version, on the other hand was the strongest.

now why didnt you say that before

No one asked.