• This forum is strictly intended to be used by members of the VS Battles wiki. Please only register if you have an autoconfirmed account there, as otherwise your registration will be rejected. If you have already registered once, do not do so again, and contact Antvasima if you encounter any problems.

    For instructions regarding the exact procedure to sign up to this forum, please click here.
  • We need Patreon donations for this forum to have all of its running costs financially secured.

    Community members who help us out will receive badges that give them several different benefits, including the removal of all advertisements in this forum, but donations from non-members are also extremely appreciated.

    Please click here for further information, or here to directly visit our Patreon donations page.
  • Please click here for information about a large petition to help children in need.

Death of the Endless Additionals Revision

Status
Not open for further replies.
Try copy-pasting the contents here again. The current format is not practical for our purposes.

Maybe the slur word filter is registering something in one of the links, and preventing you from posting because of it?
 
Resistance to Will Power manipulation seems iffy, and the rest seem fine. But agreed on more input.
 
Most of these look fine, but is the passive Empathic Manipulation consistent? Because I'm fairly certain this would A. Give many characters resistance or B, Be a outlier. I am also iffy on Resistance to Willpower Manipulation, but we already give it to Green Lanterns so it should be fine.
 
Also, the second justification for passive empathic Manipulation seems to be either a reference or metaphorical.
 
In fact, going over it again, nothing implies empathic manipulation. It just seems as if they thought she was very good looking and charismatic.
 
The quote in question is actually the author writing about stories on death figures, so that seems fishy to me to say the least.
 
For the same reason why supposedly being able to recreate biblical miracles doesn't result in a bunch of hax and a 3-A to Low 2-C rating. Because there's no reason to scale her to an entity not directly referenced in the entire series, especially when this supposed ability is supposed to be passive and is never demonstrated. Additionally, Death of the Endless clearly does not share characteristics with other death figures he mentions.
 
Most biblical being don't actually reference the bunch of hax and the Low 2-C stuff, meanwhile, it is actually written in the page that Death can do that, meaning the two examples aren't comparable at all. You could argue that this is inconsistent with Death's other appearences, which it is, but I don't know why you felt the need to make up excuses for it to be "fishy" when you could just say "that's inconsistent".
 
Paulo.junior.969 said:
Most biblical being don't actually reference the bunch of hax and the Low 2-C stuff, meanwhile, it is actually written in the page that Death can do that, meaning the two examples aren't comparable at all. You could argue that this is inconsistent with Death's other appearences, which it is, but I don't know why you felt the need to make up excuses for it to be "fishy" when you could just say "that's inconsistent".
Click to expand...
I said fishy because I don't feel like using terminology that is matter of fact every second of my life. Furthermore, they are not referenced in story, and neither is this. This is Gaiman talking about death stories he likes, and not once does he say it is part of her characteristics. Even if he did, that would be contradictory due to her not possessing any other major qualities he mentioned. Hence why our biblical standards are comparable here,
 
Again, if he's talking about the characteristics he believes Death figures have, it should apply to his version of a Death figure, not comparable at all; and again, you could ust say it contradicts Death's other appearences and achieve pretty much the same effect.
 
Paulo.junior.969 said:
Again, if he's talking about the characteristics he believes Death figures have, it should apply to his version of a Death figure, not comparable at all; and again, you could ust say it contradicts Death's other appearences and achieve pretty much the same effect.
Click to expand...
There is quite literally no reason to assume a author talking about stories of death without claiming it relates to her characteristics in anyway would scale to the stories he mentioned.
 
Most are good, but I agree with Yobo and Setsuna about Empathic Manipulation and Nonexistent Physiology.

Also, the instance of her stopping the dead with a command is listed twice as both Mind and Willpower Manipulation. I'm not sure it's solid proof of either. If a policeman tells you to stop and you do, does he have Mind Manipulation? More context is needed to those scans imo.
 
Its a safe assumption, honeslty. And again, if you don't want her to have this power, all you have to do is say it is inconsistent, which it is.
 
Paulo.junior.969 said:
Its a safe assumption, honeslty. And again, if you don't want her to have this power, all you have to do is say it is inconsistent, which it is.
Click to expand...
There is no reason it should be a "safe assumption".
 
Paulo.junior.969 said:
The guy is talking about what he thinks a Death figure should be like, he wrote a Death figure.
Click to expand...
And? That does not mean he incorporated their characteristics, and there is no reason to assume he held exactly those sentiments when he wrote it or that he could fit it in the story either.
 
If he thinks Death figures should be like that, it is safe to assume his Death figures would be like that his Death figure would be like that as well, because that's how Death figures work according to him.
 
Paulo.junior.969 said:
If he thinks Death figures should be like that, it is safe to assume his Death figures would be like that his Death figure would be like that as well, because that's how Death figures work according to him.
Click to expand...
The reasons above explain why that reasoning is not a safe assumption, even if it is possible
 
You didn'r really give any reason or explanation, you just gave your opinion on the matter, in the same way I just gave mine, with neither or us holding any more weight than the other.
 
Paulo.junior.969 said:
You didn'r really give any reason or explanation, you just gave your opinion on the matter, in the same way I just gave mine, with neither or us holding any more weight thn the other.
Click to expand...
False. Opinions cannot be proven false or true, but my statements can be. Furthermore, you have to prove your positive claim, and my claim was negative, so it is up to you to give proof first. It can be proven that he did incorporate it, but you have not given any evidence of that either.
 
None of your statements can really be proven wrong or right, you just said "I don't think that's trust worthy", and I said "I think it is", it really depends on how you take word of god, which is very cases by cases on this wiki. Also, keep in mind neither of us is trying to prove any positive or negative, we're just discussin how we use word of god.

Also, keep in mind I have said multiple times that this power is inconsistent, and that the only thing I am arguing here is that your reasoning to not trust it is bad (if yo don't want it to be added, just say "its inconsistent", instead of starting to talk about things being "fishy" or whatever), and therefore, you asking me to "that he did incorporate it" really just proves that you're not paying attention to what you're arguing against, since I just stright up said that this is inconsistent, and at no point said it should be added.

Tl;dr: I agree it shouldn't be added, due to it not being consistent, but I think the reason you gave for it not to be added is really bad.
 
I fail to see how I do not know what I'm arguing against. I simply explained why I disagreed with your sentiments, and why they could not be used in the first place. And I did address the inconsistency as well. I'd simply like to be clear for future reference regarding similar situations.
 
And if you do think the situation in question was unnecessary or a opinion, why did you continue to argue it?
 
You don't know what you're arguing against because you asked for me to "prove that he did incorporate it" even though I said multiple times it is inconsistent. And as for why I'm still arguing, well, because you continued to respond after I brought it up, and I follow wherever the conversation is going; if you don't want to talk about it anymore, just drop it and I'll do so as wel.
 
Paulo.junior.969 said:
You don't know what you're arguing against because you asked for me to "prove that he did incorporate it" even though I said multiple times it is inconsistent. And as for why I'm still arguing, well, because you continued to respond after I brought it up, and I follow wherever the conversation is going; if you don't want to talk about it anymore, just drop it and I'll do so as wel.
Click to expand...
I think it is safe to drop it, at least for now.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Son_Goku9999
Instant Death VS DC comics | Death VS Death
Replies
4
Views
1K
TotalMasterInfinity
LOTM_Historian
Lord of the Mysteries Speed Revisions
Replies
15
Views
3K
rogueprestonian
Bobsican
  • Locked
I know now, without a doubt, Kingdom Hearts isn't... High 1-A!
2
Replies
78
Views
10K
VoidGoji
VoidGoji
VeryGoofyToddler2
DC/Vertigo Cosmology Redo (Part 2 of 2)
2 3 4
Replies
121
Views
12K
Elizio33
Elizio33
VeryGoofyToddler2
  • Locked
DC/Vertigo Cosmology Redo(Part 1 of 2)
9 10 11
Replies
428
Views
43K
Antvasima
Antvasima
Back
Top