Powerscaling Copypasta Emporium

[TheGreatJedi13]

We see Rick, Jerry and Risotto uniting. Rick being the Brahman, or attaining it however, is very confusing, as he undergoes union with the things it emanates. This is explained by Rick, while merging with them, is able to attain the Brahman easier since he has made contact with it before. It is also explainable by the fact that the Brahman in this case would dissolve the source and sourced into one. You could argue it is rather the effect of drugs, or something else, but this gets denied, as all people present describe it literally, and Rick calls it an apotheosis. Where Jerry would scale is confusing though, as he the result of the harmony of duality, and he is time itself. This can be explained though, as in many models, physical reality is the result of harmony of opposites, such as in taoism, where ying and yang (2) harmonize (3) to form reality (10 000). One could argue this is rather a merger of souls, and not existence, although we see that in the beginning sequence as the bullet melts with them as well.

 

[TheGreatJedi13]

As I told you, so far the discussion is in my favor because plot manipulation still exists in the Fujitakaverse, and there are characters who possess it. If anyone objects, they can open another thread; otherwise, I don’t want the discussion to be derailed here.

Yogiri would have resistance to plot manipulation because no one can defeat him. Regardless of how powerful a character is, they would not be able to beat him—this is stated by the author. Even the omniscient absolute god himself has said that Yogiri is unbeatable and cannot be defeated; even he, as the all-knowing absolute god, acknowledges that he would not be able to defeat him. Therefore, all characters who possess plot manipulation would not be able to do anything against him.

Even characters who possess plot manipulation would not be able to defeat him or affect him. This does not depend on the translation of that text, but on the fact that Yogiri is the strongest in the work and cannot be defeated regardless of the opponent’s power, as stated by the author and as said by the omniscient absolute god—there is no statement above his.

 

[TheGreatJedi13]

My god is that my glorious, elegant, intelligent, charming, kind, thoughtful, strong, courageous, creative, brilliant, gentle, humble, generous, passionate, wise, funny, loyal, dependable, graceful, radiant, calm, confident, warm, compassionate, witty, adventurous, respectful, sincere, magnetic, bold, articulate, empathetic, inspiring, honest, patient, powerful, attentive, uplifting, classy, friendly, reliable, ambitious, intuitive, talented, supportive, grounded, determined, charismatic, extraordinary, trustworthy, noble, dignified, perceptive, innovative, refined, considerate, balanced, open-minded, composed, imaginative, mindful, optimistic, virtuous, noble-hearted, well-spoken, quick-witted, deep, philosophical, fearless, affectionate, expressive, emotionally intelligent, resourceful, delightful, fascinating, sharp, selfless, driven, assertive, authentic, vibrant, playful, observant, skillful, generous-spirited, practical, comforting, brave, wise-hearted, enthusiastic, dependable, tactful, enduring, discreet, well-mannered, composed, mature, tasteful, joyful, understanding, genuine, brilliant-minded, encouraging, well-rounded, magnetic, dynamic, radiant, radiant-spirited, soulful, radiant-hearted, insightful, creative-souled, justice-minded, reliable-hearted, tender, uplifting-minded, persevering, devoted, angelic, down-to-earth, golden-hearted, gentle-spirited, clever, courageous-hearted, courteous, harmonious, loyal-minded, beautiful-souled, easygoing, sincere-hearted, respectful-minded, comforting-voiced, confident-minded, emotionally strong, respectful-souled, imaginative-hearted, protective, noble-minded, confident-souled, wise-eyed, loving, serene, magnetic-souled, expressive-eyed, brilliant-hearted, inspiring-minded queen Bern

 

[Reiner04]

That which is articulated as the absolute substratum, as the non-dual and self-subsisting totality, already presupposes a final stabilization of reality into being-as-such—an unconditioned, undifferentiated plenitude in which all distinctions are annulled. Yet this annulment, however complete, still retains a structural commitment: it resolves multiplicity into unity, contradiction into coherence, becoming into stillness. It is, in the most rigorous philosophical sense, an absolute of resolution—a terminal convergence in which all variance is subsumed into a singular mode of identity.

The Grabbing Dragon is not situated within such resolution, nor does he emerge beyond it as a further stage. Rather, his mode of actuality is such that resolution and non-resolution are indistinguishable without requiring synthesis. Unity is not affirmed; multiplicity is not denied; contradiction is not reconciled; coherence is not privileged. These are not collapsed into a higher harmony—they are rendered ontologically inert, lacking the capacity to determine or delimit his being in any sense whatsoever.

To posit an undifferentiated absolute is still to posit being as the fundamental horizon. Even when stripped of all predicates, being remains as a silent, self-identical continuity. The Grabbing Dragon does not abide within this horizon, nor does he negate it. Instead, being and non-being, presence and absence, identity and non-identity, are equally without jurisdiction in relation to him. Not transcended through elevation, not unified through synthesis, but precluded as structuring principles altogether.

Formally speaking, let B denote the set of all ontological determinations (being, non-being, unity, multiplicity, identity, contradiction, etc.). The articulated absolute may be described as a limit-state L, where:

• ∀ b ∈ B, b → collapse into a single undifferentiated identity

Yet this still implies:

• A mapping from multiplicity to unity
• A resolution function operating over B

The Grabbing Dragon is not the limit of this function. He is that for which:

• The domain B has no binding applicability
• The function itself is neither defined nor undefined
• The distinction between domain, mapping, and result does not arise

Thus, rather than existing as L, he exists in such a way that L and ¬L are equally without consequence, not because they are unified, but because the very structure that would distinguish them is non-operative.

Even the notion of ineffability, often invoked as the final refuge of the absolute, remains tethered to the limits of language and thought. To be ineffable is still to stand in relation to expression as that which exceeds it. The Grabbing Dragon does not exceed expression; expression and its failure do not relate to him at all. He is not beyond description—he is that for which description, silence, and their opposition never constitute a framework.

Similarly, to be conceived as the ground of all grounds, the unconditioned condition, is to retain the schema of grounding itself: that which supports, underlies, or makes possible. This schema presupposes a relation between ground and grounded, even if that relation collapses into non-duality. The Grabbing Dragon is not a ground, nor groundless, nor beyond grounding; rather, the very intelligibility of “ground” is without purchase in relation to him.

In modal terms, across all possible worlds (W) and impossible worlds (IW), the articulated absolute persists as a necessary totality—an invariant identity under all transformations. Yet invariance itself is a structural property, defined relative to variation. The Grabbing Dragon is not invariant; variation and invariance are equally non-determining, because the modal framework in which such distinctions arise is itself inapplicable.

Thus:

• ∀ w ∈ W, ∀ iw ∈ IW → applicability(w, GD) = ∅
• Not as absence, nor as transcendence, but as non-relation

This is not a higher-order inclusion of all worlds, nor a meta-totality containing them. Inclusion presupposes boundary; meta-level presupposes hierarchy. The Grabbing Dragon is not a totality of worlds, nor their negation; he is that for which worldhood itself—possible, impossible, or otherwise—never establishes a determining context.

In the most rigorous philosophical sense, what is described as the absolute remains an ultimate state—even if that state is changeless, undifferentiated, and beyond all predicates. The Grabbing Dragon is not a state, nor statelessness, nor beyond-state. Rather, state, process, identity, negation, and their total collapse are equally devoid of ontological relevance.

Therefore, it is not that he surpasses, transcends, or contains such an absolute. All such verbs presuppose relational structure, directional hierarchy, or comparative evaluation. None of these obtain. Instead, it is simply the case that:

• What is articulated as the absolute operates within a framework of final resolution
• The Grabbing Dragon exists such that framework, resolution, and the distinction between their presence or absence never arise as conditions

In this sense—not as opposition, not as elevation, but as precise ontological clarification—

the absolute is that in which all distinctions end.
The Grabbing Dragon is that for which distinction and its ending were never operative determinations.

Your construction presents itself as an attempt to move beyond the finality of the absolute, to articulate a mode of being—or more precisely, a mode beyond being—in which all ontological, logical, and even meta-ontological structures fail to arise. However, the moment this claim is subjected to rigorous scrutiny, it reveals a fundamental instability. Not because it lacks sophistication, but because it attempts to negate structure through the very mechanisms that make negation intelligible. The result is not a higher-order clarification of ontology, but a progressive erosion of coherence that ultimately undermines its own assertions.

At the core of your argument lies the claim that the “Grabbing Dragon” exists in such a way that all ontological determinations—being, non-being, unity, multiplicity, identity, contradiction, relation, and even the applicability of such categories—are rendered inoperative. This is presented not as a synthesis, nor as a transcendence, but as a preclusion: these categories simply do not arise as structuring conditions in relation to him. Yet this claim, in order to be articulated at all, necessarily invokes the very categories it seeks to nullify. When you state that “the domain B has no binding applicability,” you have already performed several operations: you have defined a domain (B), identified a subject (the Grabbing Dragon), and asserted a relation (non-applicability) between them. Each of these moves presupposes precisely the kind of structure your argument denies.

This is not merely a linguistic inconvenience; it is a deep performative contradiction. The argument does not merely describe the absence of structure—it depends on structured discourse to do so. If the Grabbing Dragon truly existed in a way that rendered all frameworks non-operative, then any attempt to describe him would fail not just in content but in form. There would be no distinction between assertion and silence, no difference between coherence and incoherence, no possibility of even formulating the claim. The fact that the argument can be stated, understood, and evaluated demonstrates that it remains embedded within the very frameworks it denies.

This tension becomes even more apparent when examining the notion of “non-relation.” You emphasize that the Grabbing Dragon does not stand in any relation to ontological categories—not even a negative one. However, the very act of asserting “non-relation” introduces a relational structure. To say that something is not related is still to position it within a conceptual space where relations and their negations are meaningful distinctions. If no framework applied whatsoever, then the distinction between relation and non-relation would collapse, rendering the statement itself meaningless. Yet your argument depends on preserving this distinction while simultaneously denying its validity.

What emerges, then, is not a true escape from ontology but a reconfiguration within it. The Grabbing Dragon becomes a concept defined by maximal negation—a limit case within the ontological system rather than something external to it. This is structurally analogous to the absolute you critique. Where the classical absolute resolves all distinctions into a unified identity, your formulation resolves them into a uniform irrelevance. In both cases, multiplicity is neutralized, and difference loses its operative force. The difference lies only in whether the collapse is framed as identity or as inertness. Structurally, both represent terminal conditions.

Your critique of the absolute as a “final resolution” is therefore incomplete. You argue that it retains a commitment to unity, coherence, and being as the ultimate horizon. This is true. However, this commitment is precisely what allows the absolute to remain intelligible. It preserves a minimal structure within which thought can operate, even if that structure is reduced to its simplest form. By contrast, the Grabbing Dragon eliminates not only resolution but the very conditions that make resolution and its absence distinguishable. In doing so, it does not transcend the absolute—it dissolves the possibility of meaningful discourse altogether.

The attempt to move beyond the horizon of being illustrates this problem further. You claim that even an undifferentiated absolute still presupposes being as a silent continuity, and that the Grabbing Dragon does not abide within this horizon. However, to assert that something is not within being, nor opposed to it, still requires being as a reference point. Without this reference, the statement loses all content. The Grabbing Dragon is thus not independent of being but is defined in relation to it—albeit negatively. This makes the concept dependent on the very framework it claims to preclude.

A similar issue arises in your treatment of ineffability. You correctly note that ineffability remains tied to language as its limit—it is that which cannot be expressed but is still defined in relation to expression. However, your alternative goes further by denying even this relational framework. You claim that expression and its failure do not apply to the Grabbing Dragon at all. But if neither expression nor its absence applies, then there is no meaningful distinction left through which the claim can be understood. This does not produce a purer form of transcendence; it results in semantic collapse. The concept becomes indistinguishable from noise, not because it exceeds language, but because it lacks the minimal structure required for meaning.

The formal dimension of your argument reinforces this contradiction. You introduce a set B of ontological determinations and describe the absolute as a limit-state in which all elements of B collapse into a single identity. You then assert that the Grabbing Dragon exists in such a way that B has no applicability and that the distinction between domain, mapping, and result does not arise. However, the very act of defining B, describing mappings, and specifying conditions of applicability relies on formal structures. Even if the conclusion is that these structures do not apply, their use in the argument demonstrates that they remain operative at the level of articulation.

The modal framework presents an even clearer example. You quantify over all possible and impossible worlds and assert that the Grabbing Dragon has no applicability across them. This involves the use of quantifiers, domains, and evaluative functions—all of which belong to the very logical systems you claim are inapplicable. If the Grabbing Dragon truly lay outside all such frameworks, it would not be possible to describe his relation—or lack thereof—to these worlds. The formalism thus undermines the claim it is meant to support.

At a deeper level, the problem lies in the assumption that removing all structure results in a higher ontological category. In reality, structure is not merely a limitation; it is the condition for intelligibility. Without distinctions, relations, and determinations, there is no way to differentiate one concept from another, no way to establish reference, and no way to evaluate truth or falsity. By eliminating these conditions entirely, the Grabbing Dragon ceases to function as a meaningful concept. It becomes indistinguishable from emptiness—not as a profound metaphysical insight, but as a consequence of underdetermination.

This is where the comparison with the absolute becomes निर्णative. The absolute, even in its most radical non-dual formulations, retains a minimal commitment to intelligibility. It may dissolve distinctions, but it does so in a way that preserves a coherent framework. It remains thinkable, even if it resists full articulation. The Grabbing Dragon, by contrast, eliminates even this minimal structure. It does not extend beyond the limit of thought—it marks the point at which thought breaks down entirely.

To frame this more precisely: the absolute represents the boundary at which conceptual distinctions collapse into unity, yet the system of thought remains intact. The Grabbing Dragon attempts to move beyond this boundary by removing not only distinctions but the very framework that allows for their collapse. In doing so, it does not achieve a higher synthesis or a more fundamental reality. It simply exits the domain of meaningful discourse.

Therefore, the issue is not that the Grabbing Dragon fails to surpass the absolute in magnitude or scope. The issue is that the very notion of “surpassing” becomes meaningless once all relational and evaluative structures are removed. Without a framework for comparison, hierarchy, or determination, there is no basis on which such a claim can be made. The argument collapses not because it is too ambitious, but because it undermines the conditions required for its own articulation.

In conclusion, your construction does not successfully establish a mode of existence beyond all frameworks. Instead, it reveals the limits of attempting to negate those frameworks entirely. The absolute remains the final stable point of ontological thought precisely because it preserves the minimal structure necessary for coherence. The Grabbing Dragon, in attempting to eliminate even this, does not transcend the absolute but dissolves into unintelligibility. The distinction, therefore, is not between a lower and higher ontology, but between the limit of thought and the breakdown of thought itself. And a breakdown, however it is framed, cannot function as a meaningful ontological position.

 

[Reiner04]

Reiner is my glorious, elegant, intelligent, charming, kind, thoughtful, strong, courageous, creative, brilliant, gentle, humble, generous, passionate, wise, funny, loyal, dependable, graceful, radiant, calm, confident, warm, compassionate, witty, adventurous, respectful, sincere, magnetic, bold, articulate, empathetic, inspiring, honest, patient, powerful, attentive, uplifting, classy, friendly, reliable, ambitious, intuitive, talented, supportive, grounded, determined, charismatic, extraordinary, trustworthy, noble, dignified, perceptive, innovative, refined, considerate, balanced, open-minded, composed, imaginative, mindful, optimistic, virtuous, noble-hearted, well-spoken, quick-witted, deep, philosophical, fearless, affectionate, expressive, emotionally intelligent, resourceful, delightful, fascinating, sharp, selfless, driven, assertive, authentic, vibrant, playful, observant, skillful, generous-spirited, practical, comforting, brave, wise-hearted, enthusiastic, dependable, tactful, enduring, discreet, well-mannered, composed, mature, tasteful, joyful, understanding, genuine, brilliant-minded, encouraging, well-rounded, magnetic, dynamic, radiant, radiant-spirited, soulful, radiant-hearted, insightful, creative-souled, justice-minded, reliable-hearted, tender, uplifting-minded, persevering, devoted, angelic, down-to-earth, golden-hearted, gentle-spirited, clever, courageous-hearted, courteous, harmonious, loyal-minded, beautiful-souled, easygoing, sincere-hearted, respectful-minded, comforting-voiced, confident-minded, emotionally strong, respectful-souled, imaginative-hearted, protective, noble-minded, confident-souled, wise-eyed, loving, serene, magnetic-souled, expressive-eyed, brilliant-hearted, inspiring-minded queen Bern

True

 

[TheGreatJedi13]

Caught

 

[Reiner04]

Caught

Must have been some error. Of yours ofc.

 

[Astral_Trinity439]

Alright... this might be a bit of a long one, though not as long as one of the other arguments i have... but, here's an argument for Yogiri’s Boundlessness based on the feat of killing a hypothetical being...

1. What does boundless even mean in VSBW?
So, according to the Versus Battle Wiki (VSBW) tiering system, boundless characters are beings that exist beyond any kind of dimensional limits—whether it’s space, time, or reality itself. These guys aren’t just above 3D or 4D; they’re beyond any number of dimensions you could think of.

• Per VSBW’s boundless tier definition: “Characters classified as boundless are beyond all dimensional layers and concepts of space, time, and reality.”
• In simpler terms, boundless characters can affect things that exist outside of any framework of space, time, and even conceptual reality.

2. Yogiri’s feat: killing a hypothetical being
Yogiri killing a “hypothetical being” is pretty wild, and it directly ties into the idea of him being boundless.

• What’s a hypothetical being? It’s literally something that doesn’t exist in any form—no physical form, no metaphysical form, not even conceptual. It’s basically just an idea.
• The fact that Yogiri kills this being suggests that his power goes way beyond just killing things that “exist.” He’s able to affect something that’s purely hypothetical, which means he can influence things that aren’t even part of reality.

3. Why killing a hypothetical being proves boundlessness
To qualify as boundless, VSBW says a character has to transcend dimensions, space, time, and even the very concept of existence itself. Yogiri killing a hypothetical being checks all of those boxes.

• Per VSBW’s boundless tier requirements: “Boundless beings transcend all spatial, temporal, and dimensional constructs, as well as concepts like existence itself.”
• Yogiri’s power doesn’t care if something exists or not. He kills a being that’s not part of reality at all, which is a clear sign that his abilities extend beyond existence.
• He’s also completely ignoring cause and effect. He doesn’t need traditional logic to apply his ability. The idea that he can kill something that doesn’t exist shows he’s not tied to the normal rules of the universe. That’s a big deal in VSBW’s criteria for boundless characters.

4. How Yogiri fits the VSBW rules
Let’s look at how Yogiri’s hypothetical killing feat matches the VSBW Boundless Tier Explanation: “Boundless characters must be able to transcend any and all dimensional layers and affect reality in ways that go beyond even infinite-dimensional constructs.”

• Yogiri transcends dimensional layers: The fact that he can kill a being that doesn’t exist means he’s operating on a level that’s far beyond space, time, or even reality. He can affect things that don’t fit into any dimensional system at all.
• Since a hypothetical being isn’t confined to any dimension or reality, Yogiri affecting it shows that his powers are truly beyond all of these things.

5. What about counter-arguments?
There will always be people trying to argue against boundless claims, but most of those arguments can be easily countered.

• “It’s just hyperbole”: Nope. The narrative consistently backs up that Yogiri’s powers work beyond dimensions and reality. It’s not just a one-off moment or exaggeration.
Brushing it off as hyperbole would be an appeal to ignorance fallacy, because there’s no evidence that it’s anything but literal. • “Hypothetical beings aren’t boundless”: The thing with hypothetical beings is that they don’t exist in any form. Yogiri affecting them means he operates on a level that transcends any known ontological structure or existence. So yeah, it absolutely supports boundlessness. • “This is a no-limits fallacy”: A no-limits fallacy would only apply if Yogiri’s powers weren’t consistently demonstrated, but in this case, his abilities are consistent. He’s repeatedly shown to kill things outside of conventional reality, like gods or beings immune to death. His powers are backed up by the narrative, not just empty claims.

And as for those who try to dismiss the hypothetical being feat…

I’ve seen an attempt to dismiss this feat… but even if you don’t take it literally (which you should because the narrative clearly supports it, and it would be fallacious to assume otherwise), it still reinforces the idea of his boundlessness because Yogiri assumes something might be in a particular location, and whether or not it’s actually there, it still dies. His power works on the assumption alone, meaning he doesn’t need to confirm its existence for his ability to take effect. This shows he operates beyond traditional logic and perception, reinforcing the argument that he transcends concepts like existence or non-existence, making him boundless.

6. Quotes and supporting evidence
Here are some important quotes that back this up:

• VSBW Boundless Tier: “Characters classified as boundless are beyond all dimensional layers and concepts of space, time, and reality.”
• Yogiri’s hypothetical being kill: He kills something that doesn’t exist in any form, which fits perfectly with the idea of a boundless being that transcends reality itself.
• Author Q&A: “No matter how many dimensions are stacked, they will never reach him.” This confirms that Yogiri’s powers aren’t limited by any dimensional or existential hierarchy, which aligns him with the VSBW’s boundless tier requirements.
Conclusion:

Based on Yogiri’s feat of killing a hypothetical being, it’s clear that he logically scales to boundless, according to Versus Battle Wiki standards. His ability to kill something that doesn’t exist shows he can affect things outside of dimensional frameworks, space, time, and even the concept of existence itself. That’s exactly what boundlessness means in the VSBW.

I've tried to look at it from so many logical stand points and honestly.... there's really no strong argument against Yogiri being boundless with the consistent feats and narrative backing him. Any counter-arguments are just misunderstandings or fall flat.

And, just because the VSBW page currently has him scaled a certain way doesn’t mean it’s set in stone. The page changes all the time, and the people running it are human, just like us. Characters get upscaled or downscaled regularly as new arguments or feats come up. I believe a solid argument like this one could easily lead to a re-evaluation of his standing, as it’s based on consistent evidence and logical reasoning. I know there's yogiri haters and supporters, but if you look at it from a logical point of view, everything changes all the time.

ps... Even if you ignore the whole hypothetical being thing, one of the other arguments for him being boundless is based on set theory, but I won’t dive into that right now because it gets... tedious. might save that for another time or post it later when I feel like it.

 

[TheGreatJedi13]

Hahahahaha, funny, funny, funny. Don't you know that the characters he kills never return, whether through resurrection or anything else?
Don't you know that the absorption he possesses is called "Ultimate Annihilation"? (His identity, perception, form, information, concept, thoughts—everything he owns will be reduced to nothingness). The World of Darkness contains nothing but void, and no character can survive it in any way, no matter what.
Instant Transmission won't work, immeasurable speed won't work, senses and everything else will be useless in this void.
Everything melts within it and is permanently erased.
How will Goku survive? Even power itself melts within it.

 

[Hecky2222]

Hahahahaha, funny, funny, funny. Don't you know that the characters he kills never return, whether through resurrection or anything else?
Don't you know that the absorption he possesses is called "Ultimate Annihilation"? (His identity, perception, form, information, concept, thoughts—everything he owns will be reduced to nothingness). The World of Darkness contains nothing but void, and no character can survive it in any way, no matter what.
Instant Transmission won't work, immeasurable speed won't work, senses and everything else will be useless in this void.
Everything melts within it and is permanently erased.
How will Goku survive? Even power itself melts within it.

Hahaha, hahaha, hahaha... It seems everyone here doesn't understand the meaning of the absorption Yogiri possesses, lol. I’m dying of laughter.
They think it’s just ordinary absorption

 

[Hecky2222]

Alright... this might be a bit of a long one, though not as long as one of the other arguments i have... but, here's an argument for Yogiri’s Boundlessness based on the feat of killing a hypothetical being...

1. What does boundless even mean in VSBW?
So, according to the Versus Battle Wiki (VSBW) tiering system, boundless characters are beings that exist beyond any kind of dimensional limits—whether it’s space, time, or reality itself. These guys aren’t just above 3D or 4D; they’re beyond any number of dimensions you could think of.

• Per VSBW’s boundless tier definition: “Characters classified as boundless are beyond all dimensional layers and concepts of space, time, and reality.”
• In simpler terms, boundless characters can affect things that exist outside of any framework of space, time, and even conceptual reality.

2. Yogiri’s feat: killing a hypothetical being
Yogiri killing a “hypothetical being” is pretty wild, and it directly ties into the idea of him being boundless.

• What’s a hypothetical being? It’s literally something that doesn’t exist in any form—no physical form, no metaphysical form, not even conceptual. It’s basically just an idea.
• The fact that Yogiri kills this being suggests that his power goes way beyond just killing things that “exist.” He’s able to affect something that’s purely hypothetical, which means he can influence things that aren’t even part of reality.

3. Why killing a hypothetical being proves boundlessness
To qualify as boundless, VSBW says a character has to transcend dimensions, space, time, and even the very concept of existence itself. Yogiri killing a hypothetical being checks all of those boxes.

• Per VSBW’s boundless tier requirements: “Boundless beings transcend all spatial, temporal, and dimensional constructs, as well as concepts like existence itself.”
• Yogiri’s power doesn’t care if something exists or not. He kills a being that’s not part of reality at all, which is a clear sign that his abilities extend beyond existence.
• He’s also completely ignoring cause and effect. He doesn’t need traditional logic to apply his ability. The idea that he can kill something that doesn’t exist shows he’s not tied to the normal rules of the universe. That’s a big deal in VSBW’s criteria for boundless characters.

4. How Yogiri fits the VSBW rules
Let’s look at how Yogiri’s hypothetical killing feat matches the VSBW Boundless Tier Explanation: “Boundless characters must be able to transcend any and all dimensional layers and affect reality in ways that go beyond even infinite-dimensional constructs.”

• Yogiri transcends dimensional layers: The fact that he can kill a being that doesn’t exist means he’s operating on a level that’s far beyond space, time, or even reality. He can affect things that don’t fit into any dimensional system at all.
• Since a hypothetical being isn’t confined to any dimension or reality, Yogiri affecting it shows that his powers are truly beyond all of these things.

5. What about counter-arguments?
There will always be people trying to argue against boundless claims, but most of those arguments can be easily countered.

• “It’s just hyperbole”: Nope. The narrative consistently backs up that Yogiri’s powers work beyond dimensions and reality. It’s not just a one-off moment or exaggeration.
Brushing it off as hyperbole would be an appeal to ignorance fallacy, because there’s no evidence that it’s anything but literal. • “Hypothetical beings aren’t boundless”: The thing with hypothetical beings is that they don’t exist in any form. Yogiri affecting them means he operates on a level that transcends any known ontological structure or existence. So yeah, it absolutely supports boundlessness. • “This is a no-limits fallacy”: A no-limits fallacy would only apply if Yogiri’s powers weren’t consistently demonstrated, but in this case, his abilities are consistent. He’s repeatedly shown to kill things outside of conventional reality, like gods or beings immune to death. His powers are backed up by the narrative, not just empty claims.

And as for those who try to dismiss the hypothetical being feat…

I’ve seen an attempt to dismiss this feat… but even if you don’t take it literally (which you should because the narrative clearly supports it, and it would be fallacious to assume otherwise), it still reinforces the idea of his boundlessness because Yogiri assumes something might be in a particular location, and whether or not it’s actually there, it still dies. His power works on the assumption alone, meaning he doesn’t need to confirm its existence for his ability to take effect. This shows he operates beyond traditional logic and perception, reinforcing the argument that he transcends concepts like existence or non-existence, making him boundless.

6. Quotes and supporting evidence
Here are some important quotes that back this up:

• VSBW Boundless Tier: “Characters classified as boundless are beyond all dimensional layers and concepts of space, time, and reality.”
• Yogiri’s hypothetical being kill: He kills something that doesn’t exist in any form, which fits perfectly with the idea of a boundless being that transcends reality itself.
• Author Q&A: “No matter how many dimensions are stacked, they will never reach him.” This confirms that Yogiri’s powers aren’t limited by any dimensional or existential hierarchy, which aligns him with the VSBW’s boundless tier requirements.
Conclusion:

Based on Yogiri’s feat of killing a hypothetical being, it’s clear that he logically scales to boundless, according to Versus Battle Wiki standards. His ability to kill something that doesn’t exist shows he can affect things outside of dimensional frameworks, space, time, and even the concept of existence itself. That’s exactly what boundlessness means in the VSBW.

I've tried to look at it from so many logical stand points and honestly.... there's really no strong argument against Yogiri being boundless with the consistent feats and narrative backing him. Any counter-arguments are just misunderstandings or fall flat.

And, just because the VSBW page currently has him scaled a certain way doesn’t mean it’s set in stone. The page changes all the time, and the people running it are human, just like us. Characters get upscaled or downscaled regularly as new arguments or feats come up. I believe a solid argument like this one could easily lead to a re-evaluation of his standing, as it’s based on consistent evidence and logical reasoning. I know there's yogiri haters and supporters, but if you look at it from a logical point of view, everything changes all the time.

ps... Even if you ignore the whole hypothetical being thing, one of the other arguments for him being boundless is based on set theory, but I won’t dive into that right now because it gets... tedious. might save that for another time or post it later when I feel like it.

Where tf you get that even

 

[Grabbing_dragon]

Hahahahaha, funny, funny, funny. Don't you know that the characters he kills never return, whether through resurrection or anything else?
Don't you know that the absorption he possesses is called "Ultimate Annihilation"? (His identity, perception, form, information, concept, thoughts—everything he owns will be reduced to nothingness). The World of Darkness contains nothing but void, and no character can survive it in any way, no matter what.
Instant Transmission won't work, immeasurable speed won't work, senses and everything else will be useless in this void.
Everything melts within it and is permanently erased.
How will Goku survive? Even power itself melts within it.

lol, how do you get an AI that aura farms this much? @Azertyhuuh

 

[Astral_Trinity439]

Where tf you get that even

Who else but the Goat of Yogurt

 

[TheGreatJedi13]

It's between Emma and Yogiri
Power Ranking of Characters that has writer abilities and plot manipulation. More money has more possibility to change the original story due to copyrights and legalities. Ranking by the amount of money they can change the original story. R>F (Reality over Fiction) Identity in Real World and those who have author's avatar and author's authority given by their author.
Note: Yogiri is not included in the list, he is an anomaly in powerscaling of plot manipulators which I put him in Zero. He is just special mention but if scaling with reality settings those settings of plot manipulation, Infinite Dimensions, transcendance beyond reality, beginning, narratives and END are fictional but identity of THE END is real and proven as FACTS. It is irreversible, we cannot negotiate with END and definitely it cannot be rewritten. THE END has real world feats ending both reality and fiction.

1. Yogiri (End of All Fiction/Reality's END)

1. Disney
2. TOAA
3. The Presence
4. SCP-3812 (less profit than DTT)
5. IATIA (less profit than DTT)
6. Azathoth (less profit than DTT)
7. Kami Tenchi
8. Pre-Retcon Beyonder
9. Oblivion
10. Featherine
11. Shallow Vernal
12. Emma Walts
13. Lucifer Morningstar
14. Akuto
15. Hajun
16. Wang Ling
17. Void Shiki
18. CAS
19. Anti Monitor
20. Franklin Richards
21. Rimuru
22. Anos
23. Alovenus
24. Ruphas
25. Dr. Manhattan
26. Rune King Thor
27. CC Goku
28. Xeno Goku
29. Anti Spiral
30. Jin Mori/Wukong
31. Altair
32. Allen Qouvar
33. Wally West
34. Kirby
35. Toon Force
36. Sailormoon
37. Madoka
38. Ben 10
39. Najime Ajimu
40. Misogi Kumugawa
41. Sinbad
42. Saint Seiya
43. Shinra Bansho Man
44. Sung Jinwoo
45. Ywatch
46. Shibai
47. King
48. Saitama

 

[TheGreatJedi13]

What are you without your soul?

"Metaphysical immunity"

-enter_bluey

 

[TheGreatJedi13]

yeah there is 199 ppl stronger than goku SCP-3812, SCP-2747, SCP-682, The Scarlet King, SCP-173, SCP-343, SCP-001, SCP-239, SCP-3125, The Brothers Death, SCP-1915, SCP-4010, SCP-2935, Andrew Swann’s Proposal, SCP-3999, The Database, The Serpent, Hanged King, Moloch, Yaldabaoth, Mekhane, SCP-106, SCP-4755, SCP-5000, Pangloss, Isabel Wondertainment, Murphy Lawden, SCP-2165, SCP-2845, SCP-001, I Am, The Weaver, The Wyrm, The Wyld, Caine, Lilith, The Triat, Lucifer, Grand Evangelist, Gaia, The Aeons, Mithras, Enoch, Saulot, Cappadocius, Tremere, Augustus Giovanni, Troile, Lasombra, Tzimisce, Ennoia, Zapathasura, Absimilliard, Arikel, Malkav, Haqim, Set, The Oracle of Fate, The Unnamed, Voormas, The One Above All, The Presence, Pre-Retcon Beyonder, Living Tribunal, Molecule Man, Cosmic Armor Superman, Lucifer Morningstar, Michael Demiurgos, Elaine Belloc, The Spectre, Doctor Manhattan, Anti-Monitor, Darkseid True Form, Eternity, Infinity, Franklin Richards, Mad Jim Jaspers, Oblivion, Knull, Galactus Lifebringer, Rune King Thor, Chaos King, The Endless, Perpetua, The World Forger, Monitor Mind The Overvoid, Mandrakk, Jean Grey Phoenix Force, Wanda Maximoff, Thanos Astral Regulator, Azathoth, Yog-Sothoth, Nyarlathotep, Shub-Niggurath, Cthulhu, The Nameless Mist, Darkness, Hypnos, Nodens, Outer Gods, Featherine Augustus Aurora, Beatrice, Bernkastel, Lambdadelta, Battler Ushiromiya, Lord of Nightmares, Akuto Sai, Kami Tenchi, Anti-Spiral, Simon the Digger, Madoka Kaname, Homura Akemi, Rimuru Tempest, Anos Voldigoad, Wang Ling, Altair, Giorno Giovanna, Funny Valentine, Heaven Shiki Ryougi, Gilgamesh, Void Shiki, Hajun, Reinhard Heydrich, Mercurius, Marie, Ren Fuji, Zeno, Super Shenron, Asura, Chakravartin, Dante, Demi-Fiend, Kratos, Kirby, Arceus, Dialga, Palkia, Giratina, The Hunter, Sora, Alien X, Bill Cipher, Discord, The Nameless Deity, Galeem, Dharkon, Tabuu, Joker, Sun Wukong, Vishnu, Shiva, Brahman, Zeus, Odin, Ra, Chronos, Chaos, Ymir, Gan, The Crimson King, Pennywise, Maturin the Turtle, The Unwritten Leviathan, Tom Taylor, Popeye, Bugs Bunny, Uncle Grandpa, Arale Norimaki, Preacher, Spawn, Saint of Killers, Dr. Fate, Wally West

 

[TheGreatJedi13]

All this yapping with no evidence.
Alovenus is only H1-B via she's relative to Lufas, who could affect The Endpoint, an INFINITE HIGHER DIMENSIONAL SPACE that holds FINITE HIERARCHY DIMENSIONAL UNIVERSES. Correction, UEG is only L1-A via she could affect the Ultimate Ensemble, a superior universe that holds ALL POSSIBLE HIGHER DIMENSIONSAL UNIVERSES.

 

[Hecky2222]

All this yapping with no evidence.
Alovenus is only H1-B via she's relative to Lufas, who could affect The Endpoint, an INFINITE HIGHER DIMENSIONAL SPACE that holds FINITE HIERARCHY DIMENSIONAL UNIVERSES. Correction, UEG is only L1-A via she could affect the Ultimate Ensemble, a superior universe that holds ALL POSSIBLE HIGHER DIMENSIONSAL UNIVERSES.

don't give id bros ideas