Basically speaking you don't have much of an argument left, seeing how I deconstructed most of your claims on the previous page, and thus you're running around in circles, trying to get the last word in. Cute but unimpressive.
... ok, what?
You claimed that Lucifer was somehow weakened or depowered during the incident with Michael. You claimed it based on things that never happened, were never shown, and not how things worked. Scans were provided to demonstrate this.
.... that's not what Inazami did. You've been outright provided with scans of her saying what she did.As has been told to you multiple times before, most of his might was locked in the feathers that Izanami stole
This never happened, you've been outright provided with scans of Lucifer saying what happened after being revived by Meleos. He straight up says what happened. He does not say what you are talking about. He asks Meleos if he was able to find two feathers that would have survived the conflagration because his power went into them once his power was turned on himself.He realized this after being revived by Meleos' interference and Elaine's sacrifice.
No, what's going on right now is that it's not possible to actually have an arguement when things reach the point of scans being provided for you, you saying something the opposite of what happened in them happened anyway, and requests for you to provide anything that actually shows anything you are saying repeatedly coming up with nothing.Basically speaking you don't have much of an argument left
How is a discussion possible when your response to scanned incidents are "that doesn't matter, the thing I said happened, happened" What possible point can there be in responding to anything you say when it seems like at this point you don't really have any regard for just pulling things from thin air, and responding to scans with "doesn't matter, what I said still happened"
Asked you multiple times now for anything that shows anything you are saying in the face of providing stuff from the comics showing that nothing happened like you are talking about. Your response has been to provide nothing, as though you cannot do so, and instead say "i'm still right about this"
The only thing that makes that going in circles is that you bet, having to wonder "how can you completely ignore scans" while getting replies of "just because the comics don't show anything like I say doesn't mean I can't claim that happened" is a big ol circle.
This isn't even a case of "well, in this other incident it shows this instead" like, say, providing for Lucifer noting he created a multiverse and an incident involving multiple dimensions. This is just "I'm going to claim the comics show exactly what I say, even though they don't, and that somehow scans showing they don't, in fact totally do".
You want to talk deconstruction? One of your arguements is "everyone who reads Lucifer knows what this means.." in a thread where you, apparently a fellow who reads Lucifer, can talk about things from the comic that so far as you can possibly demonstrate, not only never happened, but have incidents of people saying things much the opposite.
Last edited by Pendaran; 02-25-2013 at 11:52 PM.
Far be it from me to interrupt such a tennis match of a discussion; but this point here warrants a response:
This is shown many times, when he is depowered by Susanoo-no-Mikoto, he is made to bleed by a common assassin and is able to impale himself of a piece of farming equipment.
Equally, when his power is being trained by the instability of Ragnarok that has infected his cosmos, he is able to be stabbed and harmed, not only by Fenrir himself but also by Noema. This doesn't contradict his soaking a Big Bang to the face because he wasn't anywhere near full power with the other instances occurred.
So, the question here is; When Lucifer's power, the very thing that keeps him super-durable, is hijacked, turned against him and used to burn him from the inside out - what do you think his durability level is going to be like?
I'm getting nothing from this guy, so hey, I'll ask you. Lucifer being depowered when the incident with Michael happened. Is there anything that remotely states this? Have I just missed something entirely?Far be it from me to interrupt such a tennis match of a discussion
I'm going to open that up generally. This whole thing with "Lucifer was depowered during the Michael incident because Inazami had all his power in feathers she stole". Where is this from? Anyone?
I mean, far be it from me to keep a "tennis match" going, but, y'know, I tend to think it's a thing when it reaches a point of posting scans, but apparently those scans somehow still show nothing that ever happened in them.
Last edited by Pendaran; 02-26-2013 at 02:07 AM.
The whole point of Izanami's strategy was that it did not noticeably effect Lucifer's power levels at all. The power draining aspect of the feather did not come into a effect until Lucifer was fighting the Basanos, gathering the totality of his power into himself to destroy them utterly, and then Susano-no-Mikoto killed those birds with those red hot katana which activated them.
There is no indication, statement or other kind of instance that would suggest that the feathers from Izanami were having any effect on Lucifer's powers prior to that moment.
You know, it was a stealth attack and all that.
Okay, I've looked over the thread and the scans. From where I stand, the viewpoint that Lucifer's power was only snagged by the feathers once he went on the attack against the Basanos is the correct one. The feathers took his power, turned it on him, and Lucifer, as noted by Nik as missing the majority of his power and thus vastly weakened at that point, then burned.
It's backed up by what's described and shown in the scans. The other viewpoint - that the feathers took his power away and he was weakened over a long period of time - isn't.
So we've had pages of this argument, and upon looking at the scans I find it's a pretty obvious one to be answered. TheGodKiller, I'm not sure how you came to the conclusion you did - whether you've made an error or are misrepresenting the evidence - but between the earlier conduct in the thread and this:
- when it's pretty clear by the scans that your speculation regarding what happened is incorrect, the shield of being new here is running out fast. I don't ask for tea and crumpet politeness here, but this is borderline trolling. Normally I'd let it go without comment, but the situation being what it is here, it deserves note.Basically speaking you don't have much of an argument left, seeing how I deconstructed most of your claims on the previous page, and thus you're running around in circles, trying to get the last word in. Cute but unimpressive.
Seeing as the thread is basically down to people arguing this specific point, I'm going to just let it die.