Avengers Dark Avengers series discussion (Spoilers)

[Ice]

Re: Uncanny X-Men series discussion (Spoilers!)

I loved Emma and Namor totally wailing on Daken and Mimic.

Yeah. Though I kind of felt bad for Mimic as he was all "Emma, no!" *Face punch*

 

[Iceshadow]

Re: Uncanny X-Men series discussion (Spoilers!)

Though, I am surprised that Dark Beast was still able to walk after getting stabbed by six Wolverine claws and one Warpath knife in the chest.

 

[Ice]

Re: Uncanny X-Men series discussion (Spoilers!)

Though, I am surprised that Dark Beast was still able to walk after getting stabbed by six Wolverine claws and one Warpath knife in the chest.

With so many operations that guy's done, I wouldn't be surprised if he did some on himself and gave him more something-or-whatever to help him.


Though it's damn awesome that Dani is gonna be a Valkyrie again!! :rockon:

 

[Ultimate Houde]

Ice needs to get out of the 80's.

 

[Ice]

Ice needs to get out of the 80's.

Just 5 for minutes!

 

[Iceshadow]

Re: Uncanny X-Men series discussion (Spoilers!)

With so many operations that guy's done, I wouldn't be surprised if he did some on himself and gave him more something-or-whatever to help him.


Though it's damn awesome that Dani is gonna be a Valkyrie again!! :rockon:

Dude, Hela=:drooling::drooling::drooling:

 

[Void.M]

I'm really Loving Daken. Especially in his Dark Wolverine book.


Hom hitting on Venom and Bullseye is hilarious.

 

[Ice]

Re: Uncanny X-Men series discussion (Spoilers!)

Dude, Hela=:drooling::drooling::drooling:

:drooling::drooling::drooling: indeed.

 

[ProjectX2]

In #11, Molecule Man eliminates all of the Dark Avengers.

This comic confuses me. I can't tell if all of this Molecule Man stuff is going to be a big thing. It seems like it should be considering how powerful he is but it appears that Siege is just about the Avengers assembling against Osborn, suggesting that this Molecule Man stuff is just another arc in this title. :?

 

[ProjectX2]

The Sentry turned up to save the day (again) and defeated Molecule Man by realizing that he too can control his molecules. The Sentry is such a ridiculous and overpowered character. The next issue apparently reveals his "secret" - it's going to be awful if he's the Beyonder or Miracleman. They need to get rid of him.

Also, Loki has supposedly been manipulating Osborn this whole time.

 

[Foolsfolly]

The Sentry turned up to save the day (again) and defeated Molecule Man by realizing that he too can control his molecules. The Sentry is such a ridiculous and overpowered character. The next issue apparently reveals his "secret" - it's going to be awful if he's the Beyonder or Miracleman. They need to get rid of him.

Also, Loki has supposedly been manipulating Osborn this whole time.

I think this is why I've grown so tired with comic books. You can't even let a villain be responsible for his own villainy? Meh.

 

[Void.M]

The Sentry turned up to save the day (again) and defeated Molecule Man by realizing that he too can control his molecules. The Sentry is such a ridiculous and overpowered character. The next issue apparently reveals his "secret" - it's going to be awful if he's the Beyonder or Miracleman. They need to get rid of him.

Also, Loki has supposedly been manipulating Osborn this whole time.

It seems to me it's the goblin side that's manipulating him.

 

[E]

The Sentry turned up to save the day (again) and defeated Molecule Man by realizing that he too can control his molecules. The Sentry is such a ridiculous and overpowered character. The next issue apparently reveals his "secret" - it's going to be awful if he's the Beyonder or Miracleman. They need to get rid of him.

If they - and by "they" I mean Bendis - had remembered what the Sentry was all about it wouldn't be an issue. The more he used his power, the more of a threat The Void was. That was brilliant. There's nothing wrong with having him be so powerful as long as they retain that crucial element, but they didn't. Now he's just a bad Superman knockoff...except he gets a headache now and then.

The funny thing is to think how well the Void would fit in the DARK AVENGERS. Duh. That's what the character is all about. And imagine Norman Osbourn manipulating The Void.

Bendis is such an effing idiot.

 

[robje]

Okay wow. Pick one. The sentry's big secret is that he is:

A) the Void
B) a meth junkie
C) God
D) Galactus
E) All of the above

 

[AnTwan]

Okay wow. Pick one. The sentry's big secret is that he is:

A) the Void
B) a meth junkie
C) God
D) Galactus
E) All of the above

I think the Galactus thing was just like saying "I am the darkness" or "I am the lord or death" or something like that... it was just something to say to get across how scary he is.

 

[robje]

I think the Galactus thing was just like saying "I am the darkness" or "I am the lord or death" or something like that... it was just something to say to get across how scary he is.

You might be right. Still, sentry is really overpowered at this point.

 

[E]

You might be right. Still, sentry is really overpowered at this point.

I'm pretty sure I've made this argument before, but I don't think Sentry's problem is that he has too much power.

The problem with Sentry is that no one knows how to write his weakness, which is the most interesting part of the character.

In the original story, the Void grew stronger as the Sentry grew stronger/used his power. So you've got a great dynamic there of a hero who can basically do anything and could save the entire world from anything - but in doing so he destroys it. It's really brilliant.

But no one uses that. Paul Jenkins didn't even use it correctly, especially in that ****atious second Sentry story he did. And Bendis just turns it into the cliche "crazy superhero" story which is not the least bit interesting, and poorly done at that.

 

[mike3717]

This issue wasn't bad. I liked the retelling of his true origin and how creepy he is.

I just hope this is all leading up to someone FINALLY doing away with Sentry once and for all.

 

[AnTwan]

This issue wasn't bad. I liked the retelling of his true origin and how creepy he is.

I just hope this is all leading up to someone FINALLY doing away with Sentry once and for all.

Everyone keeps saying that. I don't want them to get rid of the Sentry at all. E is absolutely right; the best thing about the Sentry is the sense of balance. I also think he is more interesting when he is really creating his own balance; when the Void isn't his own being. That's what is interesting. I don't want them to kill the Sentry, I want them to write him correctly. That means taking him away from Bendis and giving him to someone who understands him.

 

[Gemini]

I like how The Sentry pretty much explains the problem of an omnipowerful/omnibenevolent being.

Being omni anything implies that you contain all aspects of said characteristic, with the positive aspects and negative aspects ultimately neutralizing eachother. To be omnipowerful implies to be both the strongest and weakest being in existance, while being omnibenevolent (or omnigood) would imply being not only being the most heroic thing in existance but also the most villainous. The Sentry/Void paradox capitalizes on this brillliantly, and the fact that he has actually accomplished nothing as a character would only make it more perfect if Bendis actually did it on purpose.

 

[Zombipanda]

I like how The Sentry pretty much explains the problem of an omnipowerful/omnibenevolent being.

Being omni anything implies that you contain all aspects of said characteristic, with the positive aspects and negative aspects ultimately neutralizing eachother. To be omnipowerful implies to be both the strongest and weakest being in existance, while being omnibenevolent (or omnigood) would imply being not only being the most heroic thing in existance but also the most villainous. The Sentry/Void paradox capitalizes on this brillliantly, and the fact that he has actually accomplished nothing as a character would only make it more perfect if Bendis actually did it on purpose.

Hm. I don't think that's a proper analysis. Omni-powerful means you're all-powerful. Weakness isn't a "type" of power. It's a lack of power. By the same token, most theologians would argue that evil is merely an absence of good. If a cup is filled with water, you don't say that the cup is full of water but also empty of water. It's just full of water. It encompasses all of the space inside the cup.

 

[Gemini]

Okay okay, didn't explain it right

An object/property/characteristic is defined by what it is, and what it is not. being omni-anything implies that it encompasses all that what that trait has, and all that it does not. For example an omni-island would contain all that defines an island and all that doesn't, so it would be the absolutely most perfect island of all time, but it would be completely under-water and then not be an island at all.

infinitely powerful would be closer to what you're explaining, omnipowerful encompasses all levels of power at the same time, from a be all end all ultimate power, to a complete and utter lack of power, to being essentially a power sponge absorbing the power you do not have, and everything in between, possesing all this at once would result in an essential neutrality.

infini means the ultimate expression of the descriptor, omni means every expression of the descriptor

 

[Zombipanda]

Okay okay, didn't explain it right

An object/property/characteristic is defined by what it is, and what it is not. being omni-anything implies that it encompasses all that what that trait has, and all that it does not. For example an omni-island would contain all that defines an island and all that doesn't, so it would be the absolutely most perfect island of all time, but it would be completely under-water and then not be an island at all.

infinitely powerful would be closer to what you're explaining, omnipowerful encompasses all levels of power at the same time, from a be all end all ultimate power, to a complete and utter lack of power, to being essentially a power sponge absorbing the power you do not have, and everything in between, possesing all this at once would result in an essential neutrality.

infini means the ultimate expression of the descriptor, omni means every expression of the descriptor

Dude. No. Just.... No. You're taking the prefix and breaking it down to its most pedantic form and missing the point.

If a being is omniscient, they don't know everything and know nothing, because "nothingness" doesn't exist. It's just the absence of something.

Similarly, if you have a snail that can't push a pebble and you have an elephant that can move a boulder, an omnipowerful being wouldn't possess both the power to move a boulder and the inability to move a pebble. The inability to move a pebble is the same power, but incomplete. The power of the snail isn't define by what it can't do, only by what it can. If an omnipowerful being contains the strength of the snail and the strength of the elephant, it can move everything up to the size of a pebble, but it can also move everything up to the size of a boulder. The absence of power doesn't preclude anything.

Even all that aside, it comes down to an issue of semantics. Omnivores don't eat metals or radioactive materials or plasma.
The word you're looking for is omnipotence, incidentally, which is defined as....

1 : the quality or state of being omnipotent
2 : an agency or force of unlimited power

 

[E]

An object/property/characteristic is defined by what it is, and what it is not.

Okay.

being omni-anything implies that it encompasses all that what that trait has, and all that it does not. For example an omni-island would contain all that defines an island and all that doesn't, so it would be the absolutely most perfect island of all time, but it would be completely under-water and then not be an island at all.

No. That doesn't even make sense.

 

[Captain Canuck]

I like how The Sentry pretty much explains the problem of an omnipowerful/omnibenevolent being.

Being omni anything implies that you contain all aspects of said characteristic, with the positive aspects and negative aspects ultimately neutralizing eachother. To be omnipowerful implies to be both the strongest and weakest being in existance, while being omnibenevolent (or omnigood) would imply being not only being the most heroic thing in existance but also the most villainous. The Sentry/Void paradox capitalizes on this brillliantly, and the fact that he has actually accomplished nothing as a character would only make it more perfect if Bendis actually did it on purpose.

Hm. I don't think that's a proper analysis. Omni-powerful means you're all-powerful. Weakness isn't a "type" of power. It's a lack of power. By the same token, most theologians would argue that evil is merely an absence of good. If a cup is filled with water, you don't say that the cup is full of water but also empty of water. It's just full of water. It encompasses all of the space inside the cup.

Okay okay, didn't explain it right

An object/property/characteristic is defined by what it is, and what it is not. being omni-anything implies that it encompasses all that what that trait has, and all that it does not. For example an omni-island would contain all that defines an island and all that doesn't, so it would be the absolutely most perfect island of all time, but it would be completely under-water and then not be an island at all.

infinitely powerful would be closer to what you're explaining, omnipowerful encompasses all levels of power at the same time, from a be all end all ultimate power, to a complete and utter lack of power, to being essentially a power sponge absorbing the power you do not have, and everything in between, possesing all this at once would result in an essential neutrality.

infini means the ultimate expression of the descriptor, omni means every expression of the descriptor

Dude. No. Just.... No. You're taking the prefix and breaking it down to its most pedantic form and missing the point.

If a being is omniscient, they don't know everything and know nothing, because "nothingness" doesn't exist. It's just the absence of something.

Similarly, if you have a snail that can't push a pebble and you have an elephant that can move a boulder, an omnipowerful being wouldn't possess both the power to move a boulder and the inability to move a pebble. The inability to move a pebble is the same power, but incomplete. The power of the snail isn't define by what it can't do, only by what it can. If an omnipowerful being contains the strength of the snail and the strength of the elephant, it can move everything up to the size of a pebble, but it can also move everything up to the size of a boulder. The absence of power doesn't preclude anything.

Even all that aside, it comes down to an issue of semantics. Omnivores don't eat metals or radioactive materials or plasma.
The word you're looking for is omnipotence, incidentally, which is defined as....

1 : the quality or state of being omnipotent
2 : an agency or force of unlimited power

Gemini, ZP is right.

 

[Gemini]

Fine whatever

 

[Captain Canuck]

So if Sentry is omnipotent can he microwave a burrito so hot that even he can't eat it?

 

[AnTwan]

So if Sentry is omnipotent can he microwave a burrito so hot that even he can't eat it?

Given enough monkeys with typewriters, yes.

 

[vmenge]

Fine whatever

:lol:

 

[Jaggyd]

Actually, I'd say Sentry is the most text book example of a Deus ex Machina in Marvel's books. Kinda like how Batman was for a while, and Barry Allen currently is to a lesser extent. Most writers are guilty of it from time to time.