# TOAA vs Demonbane verse



## Senhime (Jun 28, 2012)

A guy told me TOAA can solo Demonbane verse.
What is your opinions?


----------



## willyvereb (Jun 28, 2012)

It is the truth.
Marvel coined the term of "omniverse" with TOAA being its absolute ruler.
Demonbane is at best a megaverse aka an infinite collection of multiverses.
Which is obviously below the omniverse.


----------



## Saint Saga (Jun 28, 2012)

Senhime said:


> A guy told me TOAA can solo Demonbane verse.
> What is your opinions?



My opinion is that you should kill that guy .


----------



## Nighty the Mighty (Jun 28, 2012)

Willy, could you explain to OBD version of an Omniverse to me? I thought it was all of fiction but everyone else told me that's not the version the OBD uses. Could you clarify how Marvel is one?


----------



## willyvereb (Jun 28, 2012)

Omniverse is pretty much like all the other omniwhatevers. 
It's simply everything. There's nothing much to explain about it.
As for Marvel omniverse encompassing all kinds of fiction...well, technically that was included in its explanation.
But of course it's kind of baffling to claim that Marvel includes everything, even fictions which has absolutely no connection to it.


----------



## Nighty the Mighty (Jun 28, 2012)

willyvereb said:


> Omniverse is pretty much like all the other omniwhatevers.
> It's simply everything. There's nothing much to explain about it.
> As for Marvel omniverse encompassing all kinds of fiction...well, technically that was included in its explanation.
> But of course it's kind of baffling to claim that Marvel includes everything, even fictions which has absolutely no connection to it.



 Stan Lee claiming dominion over all of fiction? Seems legit.

So when TOAA is referred to as Omniversal it just means he can erase/control literally everything?


----------



## Saint Saga (Jun 28, 2012)

Stan lee is the one above all , so it makes sense.


----------



## Will Smith (Jun 28, 2012)

Talk about spite.


----------



## willyvereb (Jun 28, 2012)

Darthgrim said:


> Stan Lee claiming dominion over all of fiction? Seems legit.


First come, first serve.



> So when TOAA is referred to as Omniversal it just means he can erase/control literally everything?


It's more like...
Anything vs TOAA = TOAA wins


----------



## Senhime (Jun 28, 2012)

Elder God can't use infinite x infinite clones to do anything about it?


----------



## Saint Saga (Jun 28, 2012)

It could use infiniteXinfiniteXinfiniteXinfinite beyond the concept of infinity clones and it still won't do a thing.


----------



## Will Smith (Jun 28, 2012)

Senhime said:


> Elder God can't use infinite x infinite clones to do anything about it?



Unless the clones are omniversal in power; they're gonna get squashed.


----------



## Nighty the Mighty (Jun 28, 2012)

willyvereb said:


> First come, first serve.
> 
> It's more like...
> Anything vs TOAA = TOAA wins



So his power is just an I win button when it comes to "fighting" other characters?


----------



## willyvereb (Jun 28, 2012)

Senhime said:


> Elder God can't use infinite x infinite clones to do anything about it?


That's merely on the scale of the megaverse/metaverse.
Omniverse is literally everything.
It's practically like you factor infinite with infinity.
And probably even more.

Or if you use modern scientific terms.

Megaverses operate on 6-dimensional scale.

The omniverse is the 10th dimension.


----------



## Will Smith (Jun 28, 2012)

Darthgrim said:


> So his power is just an I win button when it comes to "fighting" other characters?



He's not really a character technically. It's just a reference to marvel corporate.


----------



## Derpaholic (Jun 28, 2012)

There was a demonbane that defeated stan lee :ho


----------



## Nighty the Mighty (Jun 28, 2012)

Will Smith said:


> He's not really a character technically. It's just a reference to marvel corporate.



Marvel should sue everyone, after all they own all of Fiction.


----------



## Will Smith (Jun 28, 2012)

gomu gomu no kamehameha said:


> There was a demonbane that defeated stan lee :ho



More like Jack Kirby

*Spoiler*: __


----------



## Voyeur (Jun 28, 2012)

willyvereb said:


> First come, first serve.
> 
> It's more like...
> Anything vs TOAA = TOAA wins



Even Kami Tenchi? T-pein's Pain


----------



## Derpaholic (Jun 28, 2012)

Getting insulted by fantastic four , Pathetic


----------



## willyvereb (Jun 28, 2012)

Voyeur said:


> Even Kami Tenchi?


Yes,Kami Tenchi is a multiversal+ entity.
Omnipotence is meaningless if the verse itself is rather small to begin with.


----------



## Derpaholic (Jun 28, 2012)

> Omnipotence is meaningless if the verse itself is rather small to begin with.



Wrong , Universal omnipotent = omniversal one


----------



## Saint Saga (Jun 28, 2012)

Sure , whatever helps you sleep at night bro .


----------



## Strange of Eternity (Jun 28, 2012)

gomu gomu no kamehameha said:


> Wrong , Universal omnipotent = omniversal one


[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M_KdQNXMU-A[/YOUTUBE]


----------



## Derpaholic (Jun 28, 2012)

What , If he was proven to be truly infinite he can create an omniverse


----------



## Senhime (Jun 28, 2012)

> Omnipotence are meaningless if the verse itself is rather small to begin with.



Well, there is 616 Marvel universes to begin with.
Marvel claims everything else....

And it contradict how Demonbane can travel to nowhere if TOAA already there.


----------



## Will Smith (Jun 28, 2012)

gomu gomu no kamehameha said:


> What , If he was proven to be truly infinite he can create an omniverse



But he hasn't.


----------



## Derpaholic (Jun 28, 2012)

, That isn't my point


----------



## Lina Inverse (Jun 28, 2012)

When Marvel said omniverse, I don't think it meant to include ALL of fiction

I mean, TOAA ruling over doraemonverse? Or boku no pico verse? Really?


----------



## willyvereb (Jun 28, 2012)

Lina Inverse said:


> When Marvel said omniverse, I don't think it meant to include ALL of fiction
> 
> I mean, TOAA ruling over doraemonverse? Or boku no pico verse? Really?


They did.
Although I agree that TOAA approving of Boku no Piko verse sounds hilarious.


----------



## Derpaholic (Jun 28, 2012)

They rule over kissxsis verse


----------



## Will Smith (Jun 28, 2012)

Lina Inverse said:


> When Marvel said omniverse, I don't think it meant to include ALL of fiction
> 
> I mean, TOAA ruling over doraemonverse? Or boku no pico verse? Really?



I think they mean't all fictional universes in respect to all the other fictional universes they've had cross overs with.


----------



## willyvereb (Jun 28, 2012)

^That would be far more reasonable.
But you need something like an official claim to confirm it.


----------



## Eldritch Sukima (Jun 28, 2012)

I could see an omniverse being all of fiction. In that case, each supreme being (TOAA, Gan, Kami Tenchi, Lord of Nightmares, YHVH, Azathoth, etc.) could be the same entity viewed in different ways. The way every species sees Galactus differently.

Interesting concept, but I don't think Marvel was going for that.


----------



## Nighty the Mighty (Jun 28, 2012)

Eldritch Sukima said:


> I could see an omniverse being all of fiction. In that case, each supreme being (TOAA, Gan, Kami Tenchi, Lord of Nightmares, YHVH, Azathoth, etc.) could be the same entity viewed in different ways. The way every species sees Galactus differently.
> 
> Interesting concept, but I don't think Marvel was going for that.



Sage of Six paths...


----------



## Lina Inverse (Jun 28, 2012)

willyvereb said:


> They did.
> Although I agree that TOAA approving of Boku no Piko verse sounds hilarious.



won't that have like copyright issues?

not to mention the rage of some of the other series' authors for knowing some comic just claimed that this one old guy with a pen is lord over all other fiction

and not just for america too


----------



## Lina Inverse (Jun 28, 2012)

Eldritch Sukima said:


> I could see an omniverse being all of fiction. In that case, each supreme being (TOAA, Gan, Kami Tenchi, Lord of Nightmares, YHVH, Azathoth, etc.) could be the same entity viewed in different ways. The way every species sees Galactus differently.
> 
> Interesting concept, but I don't think Marvel was going for that.



I'd rather have an supreme being with tits in an evening dress over some old man on a desk that looks like he's constipated


----------



## Eldritch Sukima (Jun 28, 2012)

Lina Inverse said:


> I'd rather have an supreme being with tits in an evening dress over some old man on a desk that looks like he's constipated



Presumably a supreme being could be whatever the hell it wanted.


----------



## Lina Inverse (Jun 28, 2012)

of course it can

the one I mentioned looks better though


----------



## Eldritch Sukima (Jun 28, 2012)

Black Leg Sanji said:


>



The one part of Demonbane I don't mind one bit.


----------



## Black Leg Sanji (Jun 28, 2012)

Eldritch Sukima said:


> The one part of Demonbane I don't mind one bit.



Could you see it taking that form in the mythos aswell


----------



## Will Smith (Jun 28, 2012)

gomu gomu no kamehameha said:


> , That isn't my point



So, what is your point then?


----------



## Calamity (Jun 28, 2012)

OP seems to have met the same guy from AV who was claiming that Demonbane could solo all of fiction, omnipotents, TOAA, Demonbane is beyond omniverse and some other stuff.
The usual way those wankers begin with is:


> "There was a Demonbane who defeated an Omnipotent.
> There was a Demonbane who was the omnipotent among omnipotents.
> There was a Demonbane who soloed fiction and proceeded to solo it again for the lulz.
> There was a Demonbane who was piloted by Kami Tenchi.
> Blah blah blah"


----------



## Lina Inverse (Jun 28, 2012)

oh nya you crazy chaosgod


----------



## Xiammes (Jun 28, 2012)

Trying to quantify omnipotents is retarded, any battle is a Stalemate between them, a battle between two is a paradox and we can't even begin to comprehend it. Saying TOAA is above any other true omnipotent is retarded.

The thing is true omnipotents are the rarest things in fiction.


----------



## willyvereb (Jun 28, 2012)

Actually, being "omnipotent" merely just shows a level of absolute hierarchy and control. Limited to its own verse.
For example if the fiction has an omnipotent character but the verse merely takes place in a single universe then there's no reason to assume that he is stronger than a multiversal being.

Absolutely none.


----------



## Tranquil Fury (Jun 28, 2012)

Ah yes omnipotent debates

Rule 1: No such thing as a true omnipotent in a vs thread, an author may want their character to be supreme in their verse but this would not apply to another verse.

Rule 2: We have instances where cosmics have supreme rule in their domain but a higher cosmic may enter the domain and negate the rules of the weaker. 

TOAA is the most powerful being in Marvel, meaning only 2-4 beings really come close. He's more powerful than the entire Marvel cosmos and everything in it including Living Tribunal. Demonbane better be really that H4X else, TOAA blinks it out from existence.



Darthgrim said:


> Willy, could you explain to OBD version of an Omniverse to me? I thought it was all of fiction but everyone else told me that's not the version the OBD uses. Could you clarify how Marvel is one?



No we do not include the all of fiction part but Marvel makes a difference between multiverse and omniverse even in universe. 

Real Omniverse=everything+our world
Marvel Omniverse=everything in Marvel

Marvel is not an actual omniverse but when omniverse is included in marvel it means all universes/multiverses(3 dimensional, 4 dimensional, 6th dimensional universes etc), megaverses and everything in them including the domains of other cosmics such as Mephisto or Dormmamu plus all the dimensional planes like quantum zone or astral plane etc. 

Anyway cue omniversal shitstorm and omnipotent debates to make an already terrible thread worse.


----------



## willyvereb (Jun 28, 2012)

It's rather hax with potentially infinite number of multiverses (aka being a true megaverse).

The problem is that Marvel has coined the the ominverse term and was implied to be more than just a megaverse.


----------



## Barioth (Jun 28, 2012)

It would appear as the newer OBDers need to learn a thing or two about what is a morpheme. Cranberry anyone?


----------



## Calamity (Jun 28, 2012)

willyvereb said:


> Actually, being "omnipotent" merely just shows a level of absolute hierarchy and control. Limited to its own verse.
> For example if the fiction has an omnipotent character but the verse merely takes place in a single universe then there's no reason to assume that he is stronger than a multiversal being.
> 
> Absolutely none.



Agreed. Much better than the omnipotent vs omnipotent=stalemate stuff.
Fits in well with vs debates as well.


----------



## Eldritch Sukima (Jun 28, 2012)

Tranquil Fury said:


> Ah yes omnipotent debates



The most pointless and subjective of all debates, allegedly capable of being resolved in a satisfactory manner.

We have dismissed that claim.


----------



## Black Leg Sanji (Jun 28, 2012)

Add mega/metaversal debates as nr 2 on that list


----------



## Yohan Kokuchouin (Jun 28, 2012)

I know of a series in which the cosmic hierarchy extends far outside of the Omniverse, literally. But yeah, this thread is really meaningless. I just don't think it is the most pointless if someone was merely trying to ask a question.


----------



## Scratchy (Jun 28, 2012)

You mean your own little wankery?


----------



## mali (Jun 28, 2012)

Hmm and there was me expecting a "infinty^100>infinity^99.9" shitstorm


----------



## Calamity (Jun 28, 2012)

Yohan Kokuchouin said:


> I know of a series in which the cosmic hierarchy extends far outside of the Omniverse, literally. But yeah, this thread is really meaningless. I just don't think it is the most pointless if someone was merely trying to ask a question.



I'm smelling Omniversal Demonbane again.


----------



## Xiammes (Jun 28, 2012)

willyvereb said:


> Actually, being "omnipotent" merely just shows a level of absolute hierarchy and control. Limited to its own verse.
> 
> 
> Absolutely none.



That is why we have the terms near/neigh omnipotent. The problem with omnipotency debates is who/what qualifies one as Omnipotent. Slayers for example has the Lord of Nightmares has been called Omnipotent multiple times throughout the series, but fails to have full power while possessing a corporal form which disqualifies her as Omnipotent.

Anyone that we can label as a true omnipotent is a walking talking no limits fallacy, a being that can do what every they want which is feats for them are completely useless. 

These debates are always riddled with stupid. I say we stick to a strict definition, and anyone who qualifies would stalemate with each other.



> For example if the fiction has an omnipotent character but the verse merely takes place in a single universe then there's no reason to assume that he is stronger than a multiversal being.



Of course not, you can't claim to be omnipotent if you can't act outside of 1 universe.


----------



## Calamity (Jun 28, 2012)

I say we disregard the omnipotence stuff and go by feats. There is simply no way to prove omnipotence.


----------



## Xiammes (Jun 28, 2012)

That will never go well, if they can prove they can do what ever they want, whats stopping them from powering themselves up or disable the powers of someone with better feats?


----------



## Will Smith (Jun 28, 2012)

MohsinMan99 said:


> I say we disregard the omnipotence stuff and go by feats. There is simply no way to prove omnipotence.



I thought that's what we've always done?


----------



## Yohan Kokuchouin (Jun 28, 2012)

Scratchy said:


> You mean your own little wankery?



You have never heard me bring up anything being Omniversal.



Xiammes said:


> That will never go well, if they can prove they can do what ever they want, whats stopping them from powering themselves up or disable the powers of someone with better feats?



Wouldn't the OBD ask, has it shown feats of doing something of such?


----------



## Will Smith (Jun 28, 2012)

Xiammes said:


> That will never go well, if they can prove they can do what ever they want, whats stopping them from powering themselves up or disable the powers of someone with better feats?



You disregard the omnipotence claims and look at demonstrable evidence.


----------



## willyvereb (Jun 28, 2012)

Exactly.
Just because a character claims itself to be omnipotent and there isn't any in-universe way to disprove it, that doesn't mean the character is being virtually unbeatable in a far wider perspective (aka the battledome).
Lord of Nightmares is a low end megaversal being which seems to be omnipotent. Meaning she could most likely beat anyone on that level.

But not above.
For example the Living Tribunal would casually spank the LoN's ass in a battle.
Although that might be not the best example since the LT also has claims of omnipotence.


----------



## Calamity (Jun 28, 2012)

Will Smith said:


> I thought that's what we've always done?



Not really.
I believe this is that thread where we started doing that 


Before that was the whole omnipotence craze. If you want, I could link some threads but...
...this thread would get even more shitty.


----------



## Xiammes (Jun 28, 2012)

> Wouldn't the OBD ask, has it shown feats of doing something of such?



If they are truly omnipotent, they can do what ever they want, they can make a rock if picked up will make Demonbane collapse under its own weight, or wipe it out of existence.

We simply can't deny claims of omnipotence, it would be clear downplaying if we did, such as Willy did with Kami Tenchi. The best we can do to is to see if one is is truly omnipotent, which requires a clear and strict definition which one will never be agreed upon, its really best just to leave such ambiguous things alone.

If they don't have the feats, have something they fail to do they simply can't claim it and they can be quantified by feats.


----------



## Will Smith (Jun 28, 2012)

willyvereb said:


> Exactly.
> 
> 
> But not above.
> ...



Well, Marvel has levels of infinite power. Which is why it can have hierarchy of omnipotence. But, whether that would qualify as true omnipotence is beyond me. I rather just disregard omnipotence as hyperbole.


----------



## Black Leg Sanji (Jun 28, 2012)

I will probably regret this but what the hell:

At what scale would you put a character that creates and destroys kazillions of universes every millsecond to the end of time


----------



## Calamity (Jun 28, 2012)

Black Leg Sanji said:


> I will probably regret this but what the hell:
> 
> At what scale would you put a character that creates and destroys kazillions of universes every millsecond to the end of time



Multiversal+.


----------



## willyvereb (Jun 28, 2012)

Calling it a hyperbole is a bit much.
But like I said omnipotent beings are merely the "God Tier" of their verse and it shows an insane level of control.
On the other hand being omnipotent =/= being unbeatable in the OBD

Well, unless you're TOAA

@Black Leg Sanji: Like Mohsiman99 said it's a multiversal+ feat.


----------



## Xiammes (Jun 28, 2012)

> At what scale would you put a character that creates and destroys kazillions of universes every millsecond to the end of time



Multiversal



> Calling it a hyperbole is a bit much.
> But like I said omnipotent beings are merely the "God Tier" of their verse and it shows an insane level of control.
> On the other hand being omnipotent =/= being unbeatable in the OBD



Anyone who actually qualifies is unbeatable and would stalemate with another true omnipotent. 

I am tired of debating this, getting a headach. If you actually find a way to disprove Kami Tenchi omnipotence or actually find a definition of omnipotence that everyone agrees with, I'll return.


----------



## Black Leg Sanji (Jun 28, 2012)

MohsinMan99 said:


> Multiversal+.



Oh snap

That would the absolute highest end of the Multiversal spectrum wouldnt it


----------



## Scratchy (Jun 28, 2012)

MohsinMan99 said:


> Not really.
> I believe this is that thread where we started doing that



I can't believe I read the whole fucking thread just now.


----------



## Calamity (Jun 28, 2012)

TOAA has the* POWERSCALING* going for him.


----------



## willyvereb (Jun 28, 2012)

Black Leg Sanji said:


> Oh snap
> 
> That would the absolute highest end of the Multiversal spectrum wouldnt it


Nah, only close to it.
Literally infinite universes is the absolute height of being multiversal+.


----------



## Black Leg Sanji (Jun 28, 2012)

willyvereb said:


> Nah, only close to it.
> Literally infinite universes is the absolute height of being multiversal+.





Yeah i guess

And Megaversal would be combined universes instead of single universes right


----------



## Calamity (Jun 28, 2012)

On the other hand, if it was kazillions of Megaverses, I think we'd being seeing a possible rival for TOAA.


----------



## Will Smith (Jun 28, 2012)

MohsinMan99 said:


> On the other hand, if it was kazillions of Megaverses, I think we'd being seeing a possible rival for TOAA.



They would have to be megaverses as big as Marvel and Dc.


----------



## willyvereb (Jun 28, 2012)

DC is merely 52 multiverses IIRC.
That's hardly big.
On the other hand the DC megaverse merely a speck of dust compared to the Primal Monitor, so...


----------



## Calamity (Jun 28, 2012)

How many megaverses does Marvel/DC have? I recall something about 52 megaverses for DC (or was that multiverses?).


----------



## willyvereb (Jun 28, 2012)

^That was multiverses.
Each comic series of DC takes place in a different multiverse.


----------



## Will Smith (Jun 28, 2012)

Then there's the Beyonderverse. . .jesus.


----------



## willyvereb (Jun 28, 2012)

Will Smith said:


> Then there's the beyondverse. . .jesus.


Made irrelevant with the retcon.
Beyonder was made into a cube level being so the Beyondverse no longer exists.


----------



## ThanatoSeraph (Jun 28, 2012)

@Xiammes: Ask an "omnipotent" to make a rock so heavy that they can't pick it up.


There you go. No such thing as omnipotence.


----------



## Calamity (Jun 28, 2012)

willyvereb said:


> ^That was multiverses.
> Each comic series of DC takes place in a different multiverse.



Marvel?
Does Image have any?


----------



## Will Smith (Jun 28, 2012)

willyvereb said:


> Beyondverse no longer exists.



Actually, it still does. The true beyonders exsist in it now. I dunno if it's the same size, though.


----------



## willyvereb (Jun 28, 2012)

As far as I know Image Comics takes place in a single multiverse.



Will Smith said:


> Actually, it still does. The true beyonders  exsist in it now. I dunno if it's the same size, though.


Oh, I completely forgot them.

Although isn't the new Beyond like the Negative Zone?


----------



## Will Smith (Jun 28, 2012)

ThanatoSeraph said:


> @Xiammes: Ask an "omnipotent" to make a rock so heavy that they can't pick it up.
> 
> 
> There you go. No such thing as omnipotence.



An omnipotent being would be super logical and thus able to both lift it and not lift it.


----------



## ThanatoSeraph (Jun 28, 2012)

Will Smith said:


> An omnipotent being would be super logical and thus able to both lift it and not lift it.



So it can lift it?

I guess it can't create a rock too heavy for it to pick up. Not omnipotent.


----------



## Xiammes (Jun 28, 2012)

ThanatoSeraph said:


> @Xiammes: Ask an "omnipotent" to make a rock so heavy that they can't pick it up.
> 
> 
> There you go. No such thing as omnipotence.



I personally like the "can an omnipotent microwave a hot pocket so hot that he can't eat it?" 

I'd said no more serious post in this thread from me, so I'll be brief.  They could solve the paradox but we can't possible comprehend it till he made it so we could.


----------



## mali (Jun 28, 2012)

And the paradoxial plot thickens.


----------



## Will Smith (Jun 28, 2012)

willyvereb said:


> Although isn't the new Beyond like the Negative Zone?



It's suppose to be the same as it was before. In regards to being outside the marvel megaverse. Unless there was another retcon that I dunno about?


----------



## Will Smith (Jun 28, 2012)

ThanatoSeraph said:


> So it can lift it?
> 
> I guess it can't create a rock too heavy for it to pick up. Not omnipotent.



Supposedly, it can do both.


----------



## ThanatoSeraph (Jun 28, 2012)

You see, I've always seen the "they can do it but our minds can't comprehend it" as a bit of a cop out. They can somehow do both? Then they can pick it up in some form. Therefore they can't create a rock too heavy to lift.


----------



## ThanatoSeraph (Jun 28, 2012)

The point that I'm trying to make is that it's illogical bullshit that's impossible to prove or quantify.

Go by feats/powerscaling. Nothing else. Omnipotence and it's debates surrounding it are pointless and stupid.


----------



## Will Smith (Jun 28, 2012)

ThanatoSeraph said:


> The point that I'm trying to make is that it's illogical bullshit that's impossible to prove or quantify.



The thing is that omnipotence is not supposed to be bound by logic. It can contradict itself without contradicting itself.



ThanatoSeraph said:


> Go by feats/powerscaling. Nothing else. Omnipotence and it's debates surrounding it are pointless and stupid.



I agree.


----------



## ThanatoSeraph (Jun 28, 2012)

Okay, look at it from this perspective: As the writers of the characters are human, they are unable to solve the paradox. Therefore no character written by a human can be omnipotent.

That's my last serious post on this topic.


----------



## willyvereb (Jun 28, 2012)

ThanatoSeraph said:


> Okay, look at it from this perspective: As the writers of the characters are human, they are unable to solve the paradox. Therefore no character written by a human can be omnipotent.
> 
> That's my last serious post on this topic.


That was the point I was about to bring up.

Yes, fictional authors are ultimately human so they can only come up with things that are humanely conceivable.

Although these infinities, multi/mega/xenoversal and omniwhatever shits are seriously stretching that limit.


----------



## Scratchy (Jun 28, 2012)

Can we please shut the fuck up and lock this thread? I think Willy's post should've ended it:


----------



## Nevermind (Jun 28, 2012)

I concur.

Especially after seeing what is undoubtedly the worst thread I ever made linked here.


----------



## jetwaterluffy1 (Jun 28, 2012)

Will Smith said:


> I think they mean't all fictional universes in respect to all the other fictional universes they've had cross overs with.



Seeing as this includes transformers, this pretty much would be all fiction. 

But isn't the marvel omniverse a connected uncountably infinite set of megaverses in 10 dimensions? That was my impression.


----------



## Rax (Jun 28, 2012)

What about TOAA VS The Man of Miracles  

Stan Lee pisses greatness.


----------



## Calamity (Jun 28, 2012)

Scratchy said:


> Can we please shut the fuck up and lock this thread? I think Willy's post should've ended it:



+1. Thread has run its course.


----------



## willyvereb (Jun 28, 2012)

I prefer allowing the exhausted threads to slowly die instead of locking them, but I guess I could make an exception here.


----------

