@professorrespect: But we don't really get to see the full size of that star nor is it a good idea to estimate the size of celestial objects in comics going by just how they're depicted compared to the characters
You have a point here but this is not a good application of it. Stars are massively dependent on size and mass for how they function: destroying such a tiny one is not that impressive, especially when we can see it's not a preportion issue given by the multiple panels.
It seems like double standarts, since you're bringing up how stars function irl to determine how impressive Drax's feat is, but at the same time argue that the star in question is around the size of the bus by comparing its supposedly clearly shown size to Drax. Stars that small can't even exist irl, let alone have planets orbiting around them. It's hard to take people who try to determine the sizes of celestial objects from their visual depiction in a forty year old comic seriously
You'd actually have a point if we were looking at, say, N52 Brainiac's spaceship going from dwarfing planets to being smaller than them in other depictions. That's a inconsistency, and one that can't be simply brushed off.
And you'd actually have a point if the star in question has been clearly portrayed in its full size on panel even once, which it hasn't. All you're doing is lowballing by taking the art of a 40+ year old comic at face value and comparing it to a modern comic with much more detailed drawings. That's not fair to say the least. Again, we never see Drax approaching the star to even compare him to it, the comic only vaguely shows us what happens inside a star and then a shot of him and a destroyed star behind him, where it's impossible to determine the distance between them
They obviously didn't plan to portray it with scientifically accurate proportions, but the intent is clear
You don't know this at all. People use the word "intent" to make up their own explanations and fancanon. It says "small" so it is in fact small. Unless you can find a author statement I don't really care about your usage of intent.
The only person here who's making up headcanon is you. It was you who claimed the star being impossibly small by any standarts, comic or irl, and the only proof you've shown is incorrect interpretation of visuals of a 40+ year old comic. Even in a universe like Marvel you can't just say that a star has very unusual properties just because it seems so to you, it still needs to be stated on panel or confirmed by the author. The only statement we have about its size on panel is that it's a small star, and the small stars are still larger than Jupiter. It wasn't even stated to be a dwarf star, just small. The intent also supports it being a normal star based on the fact that on the same panel Drax destroys a normal sized planet orbiting it (unless you can prove he just randomly flew to another solar system in one panel to destroy another star, despite being blinded by rage and destroying everything that caught his eye) and a bus sized star just can't have enough gravitational pull to have anything orbiting it, let alone an entire planet
What we know is that it's a small star, but small stars are still much larger than the biggest planets, and our Sun can also be considered a small star
This is wildly incorrect given it was so small that Drax's body and hands were enough to completely cover the core and then some.
And again, nothing but a headcanon. We don't even see the full process of the destruction of the core, let alone how large it was compared to Drax's body. Again, show me in-universe confirmation of it being a super compressed dwarf star barely larger than than a human body instead of your own assumptions
As of right now he has every advantage
Nope, but I'm not exactly confident given this is the "universal Thor" guy. Even if it was only supposed to be a counteraction against wank, it's not exactly productive.
What's funny is that universal Thor is still much more consistent than "multi-solar system" level Saitama. And yes, I used it only as a counter measure against Prime's wank, which still failed. But that's irrelevant to our debate here, what matters here though, is that Drax by far isn't the only character with star level feats to whom Thanos scales to. You'd be surprised how consistent he really is, he went up against skyfather level guys, who can solo current OPM verse, more than once, which is more than enough to say he has advantage over a large planet level Saitama
it may change in the future, but currently he has better feats, better scalling, more hax
He has none of these. Thanos especially is not a hax abuser and I'll more than happily showcase that if need be.
I guess you're going to bring up every low end in existense for him, it's fine, I can counter every of his low-ends with several high-ends at worst. But saying he doesn't have better feats than Saitama is just straight-up lying. He can literally no-sell a gas giant exploding in his face, which is more powerful than Saitama's best feat yet. He can casually beat Silver Surfer to almost death, leaving him alive for purpose. Silver Surfer tanked and was conscious after an explosion, comparable to a squared serious punch. Thanos literally went toe to toe with Odin, a skyfather, who has consistent galaxy and universe level feats, tanked a blast from non-starving Galactus, from a being twice as powerful as Galactus and so on. One of his main hax weapons is telepathy, something Saitama hasn't shown resistance to yet. I can go on, but honestly, I've seen very little arguments for Saitama yet, besides his "multi-solar system" level punch, which I'm already tired of addresing
Log in to comment