monarch_prime

This user has not updated recently.

469 0 24 5
Forum Posts Wiki Points Following Followers

monarch_prime's forum posts

Avatar image for monarch_prime
monarch_prime

469

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

5

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@direflash: That's what bloodlusted is, not my fault if people use it out of context. If you want a battle where they go all out but still use their abilities to the fullest you stipulate morals off. They'll fight to the best of their abilities without holding back.

Avatar image for monarch_prime
monarch_prime

469

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

5

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@direflash said:

@monarch_prime:

So tell me, what is the official description of bloodlusted? I think morals off character is just a character that does not care any codes what he has, so he just kills the opponent with no remorse, like a villain does. So is bloodlust just a depower in these fights to make them mindless numds or what. I mean there is many bloodlust fights out there? Just curious.

It's an "amped" Morals Off. He will try to kill Superman by any means, and as this is Quasar, he will not only drain his solar energy, but his life force too if bloodlusted, and that will not be a problem for him, it's his first move in every single fight and he drained beings and things that packed more energy than Superman will ever have, Ego for instance. That's why people should stop asking for him to be the next opponent of John Stewart.

So it's an "amped" Morals off? Do explain, because morals off is using your abilities without restraint to kill your opponent. If that was the meaning then I don't see a need to differentiate between morals off and bloodlust. And where has Quasar drained life force?

Avatar image for monarch_prime
monarch_prime

469

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

5

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@direflash: Think about it this way. The description that you gave for bloodlust before is the description for morals off. Morals off is the opponent using their abilities to the fullest in order kill their opponent. Now, if that was the meaning for bloodlust then why would they need to differentiate between morals off and bloodlust? Bloodlust takes it to the next level, like when Superman fought Wonder Woman or Thanos in Guardians of the Galaxy #25. You just attack, you don't think, you don't drain, you just attack. And while this will work well for most characters whose abilities don't require some degree of thought to use them effectively, for someone like Quasar it would be a handicap.

Avatar image for monarch_prime
monarch_prime

469

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

5

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#4  Edited By monarch_prime

@direflash: I believe you're thinking of morals off instead of bloodlusted. Anyway with a character like Quasar, morals on or off yes his abilities will be used effectively. Bloodlusted, I don't think so.

Avatar image for monarch_prime
monarch_prime

469

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

5

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@direflash: The only thing that changed in Quasar from then and now is his uniform. Wendell is still the same person he's always been. He doesn't really get angry that's why there aren't any more showings of such. Those are the ones where he actually lost his cool, so they are an accurate representation of his character when angry. And to my knowledge not once has an Angry Quasar attempted a drain. That's what bloodlust means going berserk mode, morals off he would use all his abilities to destroy his opponent, but this isn't morals off. Bloodlust is the desire for blood, a desire to kill, and by just being angry Quasar fights physical much less bloodlusted.

Avatar image for monarch_prime
monarch_prime

469

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

5

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

In character, yes Quasar can and will beat Superman, by using his cosmic awareness to identify a possible power source and/or simply draining him. His best attribute is thinking in his battles, but this is not the case here, he is bloodlusted, he will not utilize his abilities like an in character Quasar would. Bloodlust does not automatically make a character stronger, one must consider that character's powerset and in what state of mind they best make use of it. Normal Quasar analyses his opponent, so in this scenario bloodlust is a handicap for him.

This is what an angry Quasar does, much less bloodlusted.

So charging a bloodlusted Superman isn't how Quasar is going to win this match. He gets put down hard because of the character stipulation.

Avatar image for monarch_prime
monarch_prime

469

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

5

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@serrure said:

@monarch_prime said:

@sirfizzwhizz said:

@monarch_prime said:

@sirfizzwhizz said:

@guardiandevil83 said:

@serrure: The Supreme that fought Gladiator (Liefields) was imprisoned by a group of Alternate Supreme's for being too violent and unstable in a pocket demension called the Supremacy. He escaped, went on a rampage looking for Moore's version, whom he felt, stole his life. Whenever Supreme is retconned the supremacy is where they are placed. Think Valhalla.

Wow, so much clicked now lol. I thought it read funny, but that makes sense.

so it was Liefields that fought Gladiator, but was looking for the current Moor one then? Did they ever find each other?

(on topic)

Though to be fair for the Omni Man showing, Moors Supreme has some insane feats still that rival New 52 Superman in all areas.

He did find him, when they released him. Then he used silver supremium to de-power them all, becoming the only Supreme. Also the version that fought Omni-Man was Larsen's version.

@guardiandevil83 said:

@monarch_prime: Oh, you're right.

Im confused as hell now...

So Gladiator fought the near Silver Age Superman (aka Larsens) Supreme? And Omni man fought this one too and not Alan Moor's supreme, but fought the same Supreme who fought Gladiator?

No, Gladiator fought Liefeld's Supreme. Omni-Man fought the evil Supreme that was written by Erik Larsen after Moore's run finished. Larsen's version was supposed to be a representation of Leifeld's version. The evil one. Moore's version, on the other hand was the strongest.

now why didnt you say that before

No one asked.

Avatar image for monarch_prime
monarch_prime

469

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

5

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@monarch_prime said:

@sirfizzwhizz said:

@guardiandevil83 said:

@serrure: The Supreme that fought Gladiator (Liefields) was imprisoned by a group of Alternate Supreme's for being too violent and unstable in a pocket demension called the Supremacy. He escaped, went on a rampage looking for Moore's version, whom he felt, stole his life. Whenever Supreme is retconned the supremacy is where they are placed. Think Valhalla.

Wow, so much clicked now lol. I thought it read funny, but that makes sense.

so it was Liefields that fought Gladiator, but was looking for the current Moor one then? Did they ever find each other?

(on topic)

Though to be fair for the Omni Man showing, Moors Supreme has some insane feats still that rival New 52 Superman in all areas.

He did find him, when they released him. Then he used silver supremium to de-power them all, becoming the only Supreme. Also the version that fought Omni-Man was Larsen's version.

@guardiandevil83 said:

@monarch_prime: Oh, you're right.

Im confused as hell now...

So Gladiator fought the near Silver Age Superman (aka Larsens) Supreme? And Omni man fought this one too and not Alan Moor's supreme, but fought the same Supreme who fought Gladiator?

No, Gladiator fought Liefeld's Supreme. Omni-Man fought the evil Supreme that was written by Erik Larsen after Moore's run finished. Larsen's version was supposed to be a representation of Leifeld's version. The evil one. Moore's version, on the other hand was the strongest.

Avatar image for monarch_prime
monarch_prime

469

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

5

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Avatar image for monarch_prime
monarch_prime

469

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

5

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@guardiandevil83 said:

@serrure: The Supreme that fought Gladiator (Liefields) was imprisoned by a group of Alternate Supreme's for being too violent and unstable in a pocket demension called the Supremacy. He escaped, went on a rampage looking for Moore's version, whom he felt, stole his life. Whenever Supreme is retconned the supremacy is where they are placed. Think Valhalla.

Wow, so much clicked now lol. I thought it read funny, but that makes sense.

so it was Liefields that fought Gladiator, but was looking for the current Moor one then? Did they ever find each other?

(on topic)

Though to be fair for the Omni Man showing, Moors Supreme has some insane feats still that rival New 52 Superman in all areas.

He did find him, when they released him. Then he used silver supremium to de-power them all, becoming the only Supreme. Also the version that fought Omni-Man was Larsen's version.