IF you had the Infininity Gauntlet, what would you do?


Off-Topic Discussions

151 to 200 of 248 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I may have already posted this but the problem with doubling resources is the same as when they double the lanes on a highway to try and alleviate Traffic. The new 8 lane just feels up too. Also Thanos is crazy and has no issues with killing half of the universes population.

However I still would of preferred the lady death angle.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

In GotG1, Ronan is surprised that Star Lord, a mere human, can use (or even touch?) an infinity stone without dying. He can, because he's not just a human, but the son of Ego.

I am a mere human, the son of Conrad. If I tried to use the Infinity Gauntlet, I guess I'd just die.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Orthos, Recurring Evil Henchman wrote:
SHUN THE NONBELIEVER! SHUUUUUUUUUUUNNNNNNN!!!

LET'S SACRIFICE HIM TO OUR GOD

Shadow Lodge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Corathonv2 wrote:

In GotG1, Ronan is surprised that Star Lord, a mere human, can use (or even touch?) an infinity stone without dying. He can, because he's not just a human, but the son of Ego.

I am a mere human, the son of Conrad. If I tried to use the Infinity Gauntlet, I guess I'd just die.

I was under the impression one of the purposes of the gauntlet was to protect the wearer from the corrosive, destructive power of the stones and channel it toward their use with less danger pointed back at them in the process. Thanos never actually touches the stones themselves for very long, either quickly putting them in place on the gauntlet or moving them around with some kind of telekinesis.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Freehold DM wrote:
Orthos, Recurring Evil Henchman wrote:
SHUN THE NONBELIEVER! SHUUUUUUUUUUUNNNNNNN!!!
LET'S SACRIFICE HIM TO OUR GOD

I HUNGER


1 person marked this as a favorite.

If I had the infinity gauntlet...

First, there is no such thing as free will. If we knew EVERY variable possible, we could always predict with perfect accuracy what a person would do tomorrow. The problem is that it is very difficult to know even most of the variables, let alone ALL of them.

The concept of free will and choice is an illusion created by the arrow of time (time progresses from the state of no entropy, to complete entropy). In a universe without things like infinity gauntlets (or similar), the present moment is like a curtain from behind which things emerge and we can't see them until that moment. This doesn't mean our choices don't matter, or that we should change how we behave, but in a sense all of existence (all of space and time) has already happened. What you will do tomorrow is already decided based on all the things that have happened before, but you can't see/know what they will be until they happen, because that is how we experience time.

When you start looking into things like evolutionary psychology, some neuroscience, and similar areas of study, the evidence of our lack of free will starts to become even more apparent.

Free will is a useful construct for determining rules and imposing consequences for breaking those rules, but it is nothing more than a useful fiction (for an easy example of a useful fiction, ask a firearms safety instructor why you should always behave AS IF a gun is loaded, even if you've checked it 5 times to make sure it isn't).

If something like the infinity gauntlet exists though, you can mess with the arrow of time. Not just the order in which things happen, but you would directly be able to influence the amount of entropy in the universe and the rate of change of entropy. At that moment, the wearer of the infinity gauntlet becomes the only being in the universe to actually have free will. You are no longer beholden to the things that happened to you before that moment. You would be able to restructure your biology to actually free you from the limits of the human animal.

It is hard for me to imagine what the implications of such an act might be. Being freed from the fundamental process of entropy seems like such a small and insignificant thing at first, but it is the foundation upon which our existence rests. Would I even care about who the American President was anymore? Would human suffering be something I could still understand?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I know what would go down before I absorb all the knowledge required to make those universe-shattering changes...

...so much debauchery.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
The Vagrant Erudite wrote:

I know what would go down before I absorb all the knowledge required to make those universe-shattering changes...

...so much debauchery.

Consequence free debauchery?


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Look all I know is Thanos is mad, he's still better than Darkseid, and if I had the Infinity Gauntlet, I'd probably re-write Spidey's history so he'd stop NOT be married to MJ. :p

I mean important stuff. :p


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Wei Ji the Learner wrote:
The Vagrant Erudite wrote:

I know what would go down before I absorb all the knowledge required to make those universe-shattering changes...

...so much debauchery.

Consequence free debauchery?

Everything is consequence free when you control reality. Don't like what happened? Undo it and do something different.

Though, do you even need the experience? I mean, sex and drugs and experiences and everything that brings that temporary high that so many chase...you could just implant it into your own mind permanently without the necessary buildup.

Imagine: drunkenness, being high, having an orgasm, whatever your vices...all at the same time, all without negative side effects, and all neverending. Holy s!#+.

I don't think I'd get anything done for a couple millennia, at least.

Okay, so (revised edition):

Step 1) Make self unkillable, and unable to die from aging, effectively immortal, but reversible if I should so choose after discovering the secrets of the universe later.

Step 2) Turn VICE-MODE on. Enjoy a few millennia of pure unadulterated bliss.

Step 3) Unlock the secrets of the universe.

Step 4) Proceed based upon results of Step 3.

Shadow Lodge

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Thomas Seitz wrote:

Look all I know is Thanos is mad, he's still better than Darkseid, and if I had the Infinity Gauntlet, I'd probably re-write Spidey's history so he'd stop NOT be married to MJ. :p

I mean important stuff. :p

The scourge of One More Day continues to plague us all.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Orthos wrote:
Thomas Seitz wrote:

Look all I know is Thanos is mad, he's still better than Darkseid, and if I had the Infinity Gauntlet, I'd probably re-write Spidey's history so he'd stop NOT be married to MJ. :p

I mean important stuff. :p

The scourge of One More Day continues to plague us all.

that struck me as dumb.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Irontruth wrote:

If I had the infinity gauntlet...

First, there is no such thing as free will. If we knew EVERY variable possible, we could always predict with perfect accuracy what a person would do tomorrow. The problem is that it is very difficult to know even most of the variables, let alone ALL of them.

The concept of free will and choice is an illusion created by the arrow of time (time progresses from the state of no entropy, to complete entropy). In a universe without things like infinity gauntlets (or similar), the present moment is like a curtain from behind which things emerge and we can't see them until that moment. This doesn't mean our choices don't matter, or that we should change how we behave, but in a sense all of existence (all of space and time) has already happened. What you will do tomorrow is already decided based on all the things that have happened before, but you can't see/know what they will be until they happen, because that is how we experience time.

When you start looking into things like evolutionary psychology, some neuroscience, and similar areas of study, the evidence of our lack of free will starts to become even more apparent.

Free will is a useful construct for determining rules and imposing consequences for breaking those rules, but it is nothing more than a useful fiction (for an easy example of a useful fiction, ask a firearms safety instructor why you should always behave AS IF a gun is loaded, even if you've checked it 5 times to make sure it isn't).

Unproven assertion.

Quantum mechanics tells us that nature is, at bottom, probabilistic. So predicting the future with perfect certainty is literally impossible, even given all possible knowledge.
That doesn't mean that humans have free will, but it certainly leaves the possibility open.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Corathonv2 wrote:
Irontruth wrote:

If I had the infinity gauntlet...

First, there is no such thing as free will. If we knew EVERY variable possible, we could always predict with perfect accuracy what a person would do tomorrow. The problem is that it is very difficult to know even most of the variables, let alone ALL of them.

The concept of free will and choice is an illusion created by the arrow of time (time progresses from the state of no entropy, to complete entropy). In a universe without things like infinity gauntlets (or similar), the present moment is like a curtain from behind which things emerge and we can't see them until that moment. This doesn't mean our choices don't matter, or that we should change how we behave, but in a sense all of existence (all of space and time) has already happened. What you will do tomorrow is already decided based on all the things that have happened before, but you can't see/know what they will be until they happen, because that is how we experience time.

When you start looking into things like evolutionary psychology, some neuroscience, and similar areas of study, the evidence of our lack of free will starts to become even more apparent.

Free will is a useful construct for determining rules and imposing consequences for breaking those rules, but it is nothing more than a useful fiction (for an easy example of a useful fiction, ask a firearms safety instructor why you should always behave AS IF a gun is loaded, even if you've checked it 5 times to make sure it isn't).

Unproven assertion.

Quantum mechanics tells us that nature is, at bottom, probabilistic. So predicting the future with perfect certainty is literally impossible, even given all possible knowledge.
That doesn't mean that humans have free will, but it certainly leaves the possibility open.

I'm not particularly learned when it comes to quantum mechanics; the conversation goes mostly over my head. So if I say something really dumb, that's probably why.

But I was under the impression that the most common interpretation of quantum mechanics these-a-days was macroscopic decoherence, or, Many-Worlds. Which (not that my opinion matters!) makes more sense, to me at least, than wave function collapse; it doesn't require anything moving faster than light, there aren't any effects without causes, and Many-Worlds doesn't appear to contradict special relativity, which is more than can be said for collapse.

But again! I'm by no means an expert on the subject! I could be making a fool of myself here.

That said . . . assuming that the universe is fundamentally random isn't any better for the prospects of free will than assuming it's deterministic.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

1) semi-random (via probabilism or whatever it's called - basically it's all guesswork

2) many-worlds is kiiiiiiiinda under assault, because not only is it not falsifiable (at present; comic-book-science: hoooooooooo~!), but because a lot of the work that has been done with it, so far, is kind of starting to look... weird. Also probably wrong, considering it's not really compatible (as we currently use it) with, you know, our observations. (This does not mean either it or our observations are incorrect; rather, there is a whole body of work in danger of being invalidated because if you're using it as-presented it kind of invalidates our existence, from what we can tell, which... you know... that's kind of problematic. Of course, there are others who loudly suggest it's hookum, and Many Worlds is fiiiiiiiiiiiiiine, this is fine, everything is fine... and they may well be right)

3) as I am no expert, I'mma just point to random science journals and YouTubers that actually teach science courses, and shrug (though said YouTubers are usually reeeeaaally cautious about embracing anything that "changes everything we know!" and usually counsels folk to go look at, you know, science journals... and also read them with large grains of salt). EDIT: ALSO: meant to mention, but forgot, anything I say could be suuuuuuuuuper-out-of-date. I'm not always on top of things, and stuff can happen quickly.

Quote:
But again! I'm by no means an expert on the subject! I could be making a fool of myself here.

You are not!

Quote:
That said . . . assuming that the universe is fundamentally random isn't any better for the prospects of free will than assuming it's deterministic.

You are correct - it doesn't... at least not automatically. The more randomization it gets the more vague possibility of "free will" as we define it exists. (This is, incidentally, also true with the "infinite worlds" take on "many worlds" though that's not fully accepted, either.)

What I'm saying is that people disagree about things, even really, really smart people, who get into passionate nerd arguments and call each other names like dumb-face and poopoohead (even if only in their minds).


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Forgive any typos, I’m not great with touchscreen keyboards. I think I caught them all, but I’m probably wrong.

I’m no expert on the subject, so I can’t confidently say you’re wrong. To explain my line of reasoning, though, and live up to my argumentative screen name:

Tacticslion wrote:
2) many-worlds is kiiiiiiiinda under assault, because not only is it not falsifiable (at present; comic-book-science: hoooooooooo~!), but because a lot of the work that has been done with it, so far, is kind of starting to look... weird. Also probably wrong, considering it's not really compatible (as we currently use it) with, you know, our observations. (This does not mean either it or our observations are incorrect; rather, there is a whole body of work in danger of being invalidated because if you're using it as-presented it kind of invalidates our existence, from what we can tell, which... you know... that's kind of problematic. Of course, there are others who loudly suggest it's hookum, and Many Worlds is fiiiiiiiiiiiiiine, this is fine, everything is fine... and they may well be right)

Regarding falsifiability, neither is wave-function collapse. At least, neither is more falsifiable than the other; they both seem to model observed reality equally well. I mean, either side of the debate could say, “under my interpretation of quantum mechanics, apples fall towards the ground and entangled particles remain so if geographically removed. My hypothesis is falsifiable; just get apples to fall up or some entangled particles spinning abnormally.” But that doesn’t help us distinguish between them.

So, my question is, if both theories fit the evidence, why favor collapse just because it was mainstream first? If Many-Worlds was proposed before collapse was (as it doubtlessly was, in a different world!) would we be complaining that collapse is unfalsifiable?

If two theories explain the evidence equally well, the simpler one has a better chance of being the right one. Since positing that parts of a wave function magically disappear, faster than light, completely at random, does not strike me as simple, and the logical conclusion of it not happening is decoherence on a macroscopic level, I deem Many-Worlds the winner - though it’s more than possible I’m missing something, or a lot of somethings. Not a quantum physist!


Oh, no, I'm not arguing that. I'm mostly just mentioning because you gave some disclaimers. As a non-expert chatting with a non-expert, I'm not making an argument, but mentioning stuff you may have not heard of that's actually happening and being discussed (at least it was, like, two or three months ago when I was reading it).


Asmodeus' Advocate wrote:

So, my question is, if both theories fit the evidence, why favor collapse just because it was mainstream first? If Many-Worlds was proposed before collapse was (as it doubtlessly was, in a different world!) would we be complaining that collapse is unfalsifiable?

If two theories explain the evidence equally well, the simpler one has a better chance of being the right one. Since positing that parts of a wave function magically disappear, faster than light, completely at random, does not strike me as simple, and the logical conclusion of it not happening is decoherence on a macroscopic level, I deem Many-Worlds the winner - though it’s more than possible I’m missing something, or a lot of somethings. Not a quantum physist!

That said, it's not just unfalsifiability being discussed.

It's actually a matter of following math that looked like it explained Many Worlds, but ultimately didn't allow us to exist under observable evidence. Whereas wave function collapse hasn't had a definitive-seeming explanation that now is subject to scrutiny or even rejection.
Which I don't even know if that's a thing that's happened.

The shakeup, as I understand it, is equally about the people who were championing the ideas being proven wrong (by themselves, no less!) and thus there is a kind of collapse of support.

But neither are actually as simple or straightforward as they might seem, and both require some pretty wild elements in quantum physics.

(Also, wave function collapse isn't, to my understanding, an explanation of why, but a description of what, with Many Worlds being an explanation of why. But it's late, I think I'm sick, and I'm really tired, so I may regret this in the morning.)

Either way, I'd totes use that gauntlet to create a UTE. That would help.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

*Looks at thread*

What's a quantum?


2 people marked this as a favorite.

a discrete quantity of energy proportional in magnitude to the frequency of the radiation it represents.

It basically an entity that they can detect By it's energy I think. Its a physics thing so I'm not entirely knowledgeable about it.

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

Oh, the Bond film title makes way more sense now.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think its has to do with how an electron microscope works. So you start getting small enough and things are too small for light to bounce off so there is literally no way to see them right? So the electron microscope bounces electrons off of the object and you basically are tracing it with electrons to see it. (there is like one more step in there somewhere I think) Really need a physicist at this point to properly explain it i'm sure I'm butchering it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I was always under the impression that it was code for 'Magic'


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think when it is published in fiction that is pretty well what it means yes.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Asmodeus' Advocate wrote:
If two theories explain the evidence equally well, the simpler one has a better chance of being the right one. Since positing that parts of a wave function magically disappear, faster than light, completely at random, does not strike me as simple, and the logical conclusion of it not happening is decoherence on a macroscopic level, I deem Many-Worlds the winner - though it’s more than possible I’m missing something, or a lot of somethings. Not a quantum physist!

The other part I've heard that (potentially) supports the Man-Worlds hypothesis is that the net energy of the universe is zero (if matter is positive, and gravity is negative, the two cancel each other out perfectly). If a universe has a net energy cost of zero, then once you have a process by which you can make one universe, you can make an infinite number of them.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Vidmaster7 wrote:
I think when it is published in fiction that is pretty well what it means yes.

This is extremely true.

Bop and Boop and the "See also" should be entirely too much information. Beware that there are twenty seven links in "See also" for the first, and eight more in the second (though the second is technically one of the links in the first, and there is certainly some overlap which I didn't take note of, so... eh).

And, of course, this is the low-grade stuff. Basic, more-or-less accurate, but also dry, and missing pretty important contexts.

Quote:

Quantum mechanics (QM; also known as quantum physics, quantum theory, the wave mechanical model, or matrix mechanics), including quantum field theory, is a fundamental theory in physics which describes nature at the smallest scales of energy levels of atoms and subatomic particles.[2]

Classical physics, the physics existing before quantum mechanics, describes nature at ordinary (macroscopic) scale. Most theories in classical physics can be derived from quantum mechanics as an approximation valid at large (macroscopic) scale.[3] Quantum mechanics differs from classical physics in that energy, momentum, angular momentum and other quantities of a bound system are restricted to discrete values (quantization); objects have characteristics of both particles and waves (wave-particle duality); and there are limits to the precision with which quantities can be measured (uncertainty principle).[note 1]

Quantum mechanics gradually arose from theories to explain observations which could not be reconciled with classical physics, such as Max Planck's solution in 1900 to the black-body radiation problem, and from the correspondence between energy and frequency in Albert Einstein's 1905 paper which explained the photoelectric effect. Early quantum theory was profoundly re-conceived in the mid-1920s by Erwin Schrödinger, Werner Heisenberg, Max Born and others. The modern theory is formulated in various specially developed mathematical formalisms. In one of them, a mathematical function, the wave function, provides information about the probability amplitude of position, momentum, and other physical properties of a particle.

Important applications of quantum theory[5] include quantum chemistry, quantum optics, quantum computing, superconducting magnets, light-emitting diodes, and the laser, the transistor and semiconductors such as the microprocessor, medical and research imaging such as magnetic resonance imaging and electron microscopy. Explanations for many biological and physical phenomena are rooted in the nature of the chemical bond, most notably the macro-molecule DNA.

Link two also has a pretty picture.

Oh, hey, here's another.

But, for those of you who really, really want to understand the four fundamental forces, here you go. It really is the easiest and clearest explanation for them. And the alt-text is pretty important. And this one tells you about quantum mechanics. This one explains that one, while this explains the one before it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Irontruth wrote:
Asmodeus' Advocate wrote:
If two theories explain the evidence equally well, the simpler one has a better chance of being the right one. Since positing that parts of a wave function magically disappear, faster than light, completely at random, does not strike me as simple, and the logical conclusion of it not happening is decoherence on a macroscopic level, I deem Many-Worlds the winner - though it’s more than possible I’m missing something, or a lot of somethings. Not a quantum physist!
The other part I've heard that (potentially) supports the Man-Worlds hypothesis is that the net energy of the universe is zero (if matter is positive, and gravity is negative, the two cancel each other out perfectly). If a universe has a net energy cost of zero, then once you have a process by which you can make one universe, you can make an infinite number of them.

First, insert requisite joke about "man-world" and whatever jokes you want to make out of that - they are many and varied.

Second... oh yeah! I'd forgotten I was going to link to that. Yo. And, of course, also.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

I would make a ton of knock-off, barely functional if at all, copies of the gauntlet and stones and scatter them around the universe in death-traps to bait people. I would then set up a system of cameras and create infinite popcorn...and wait.

What's wrong with being an irresponsible supervillain? If I wanted to be responsible, I'd be a hero.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Scintillae wrote:

I would make a ton of knock-off, barely functional if at all, copies of the gauntlet and stones and scatter them around the universe in death-traps to bait people. I would then set up a system of cameras and create infinite popcorn...and wait.

What's wrong with being an irresponsible supervillain? If I wanted to be responsible, I'd be a hero.

Zhere is NOHZHINK wronk wizh watzchink your enemiez ztumble through zhe vhonderful gauntlet of trapz undhk defenzhez you hafh laid out vhor zhem and gainink muzch entertainment vhrom zheir zhufferink. It iz zhe practikal vhay to deal vhiv vhone'z voes.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Well, I’m off to learn what’s the latest going ons with people maybe disproving Many-Worlds! Tacticslion, do you have any links for me to follow, help me in my edumactionizing?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Asmodeus' Advocate wrote:
Well, I’m off to learn what’s the latest going ons with people maybe disproving Many-Worlds! Tacticslion, do you have any links for me to follow, help me in my edumactionizing?

Nope! I read up a lot on it for a bit, and then forgot and stopped paying attention.

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaalso, on that not, I think I was mistaken (I did note I may regret that post in the morning): it seems the real problem is indirect: it's about String Theory being incompatible with Dark Energy and how that specifically relates to the concept of many "universes" I'll just link the old Paizo thread on the topic and you can fake-educate yourself that way. ;D

I'm going to go take some cough medicine and maybe pass out. XD


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tacticslion wrote:
I'm going to go take some cough medicine and maybe pass out. XD

Have fun!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Asmodeus' Advocate wrote:
Tacticslion wrote:
I'm going to go take some cough medicine and maybe pass out. XD
Have fun!

We found Tac's vice. He's on that Sizzurp!


The Vagrant Erudite wrote:
Asmodeus' Advocate wrote:
Tacticslion wrote:
I'm going to go take some cough medicine and maybe pass out. XD
Have fun!
We found Tac's vice. He's on that Sizzurp!

I... I couldn't find any...


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tacticslion wrote:
The Vagrant Erudite wrote:
Asmodeus' Advocate wrote:
Tacticslion wrote:
I'm going to go take some cough medicine and maybe pass out. XD
Have fun!
We found Tac's vice. He's on that Sizzurp!
I... I couldn't find any...

Maybe if you stopped mixing it with Hennessy and drinking it like it were water you'd have it when you need it. Honestly, Lil Wayne up in here needs to chill. You have children for goodness sake!

You know I'm just playin

Paizo Employee Malaise-Inducement Construct

1 person marked this as a favorite.

:)

Shadow Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

WELP


The Vagrant Erudite wrote:
Tacticslion wrote:
The Vagrant Erudite wrote:
Asmodeus' Advocate wrote:
Tacticslion wrote:
I'm going to go take some cough medicine and maybe pass out. XD
Have fun!
We found Tac's vice. He's on that Sizzurp!
I... I couldn't find any...

Maybe if you stopped mixing it with Hennessy and drinking it like it were water you'd have it when you need it. Honestly, Lil Wayne up in here needs to chill. You have children for goodness sake!

You know I'm just playin

Is... is it bad... that I... don't know... what "Hennessy" is?

I feel like I should know. I'm guessing alcohol.

Also is Lil' Wayne known for... drinking? Context cues - I'm guessing drinking.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Tacticslion wrote:
The Vagrant Erudite wrote:
Tacticslion wrote:
The Vagrant Erudite wrote:
Asmodeus' Advocate wrote:
Tacticslion wrote:
I'm going to go take some cough medicine and maybe pass out. XD
Have fun!
We found Tac's vice. He's on that Sizzurp!
I... I couldn't find any...

Maybe if you stopped mixing it with Hennessy and drinking it like it were water you'd have it when you need it. Honestly, Lil Wayne up in here needs to chill. You have children for goodness sake!

You know I'm just playin

Is... is it bad... that I... don't know... what "Hennessy" is?

I feel like I should know. I'm guessing alcohol.

Also is Lil' Wayne known for... drinking? Context cues - I'm guessing drinking.

It is a moderately but not outrageously high quality alcohol favored by rappers. Lil Wayne is among many rappers known for mixing cough syrup that contains codeine with alcohol to get f%&+ed up. The concoction is affectionately known as sizzurp.

Now you get my joke. Wow. I feel like I'm an entry in Urban Dictionary.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I would totally make all the video-game ideas that I have in my head to make.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tacticslion wrote:
I would totally make all the video-game ideas that I have in my head to make.

Like this one!

(That is but one of many, many examples.)


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Orthos wrote:
Thomas Seitz wrote:

Look all I know is Thanos is mad, he's still better than Darkseid, and if I had the Infinity Gauntlet, I'd probably re-write Spidey's history so he'd stop NOT be married to MJ. :p

I mean important stuff. :p

The scourge of One More Day continues to plague us all.

That and the Clone Saga...


3 people marked this as a favorite.

A new thing I'd do with the Infinity Gauntlet:

I wouldn't lose like a b~+~@ to Darkseid in Death Battle. I'd just pause time, use infinite knowledge to deduce his nature, and lock him permanently out of the universe.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Yeah I was kind of miffed by that...but then again if you think about it, when you can fight Superman who can pretty much out tank EVERYONE... not that surprising. That doesn't mean I think Darkseid is a better villain though.


Thomas Seitz wrote:
Yeah I was kind of miffed by that...but then again if you think about it, when you can fight Superman who can pretty much out tank EVERYONE... not that surprising. That doesn't mean I think Darkseid is a better villain though.

But supes really, really cannot “tank anyone” - he has been repeatedly shown to have waknesses, and even without those, limits. It’s why I bitterly protest the “Superman defeats Goku” results, too: Supes is a great character, but he literally is not capable - in any version - or many of the feats that Goku eventually gets up to as a matter of course. While Supes’ power DOES fluctuate more than Goku, he’s just never been able to do the absolutely insane things Goku tends to accomplish. I like both characters, but that really shouldn’t have been the results.

Then again, Thanks and Darkseid are more evenly matched - Thanos + gauntlet really shouldn’t lose, but I can see the two being considered more even without the gauntlet.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Actually I see thanos as a one trick pony with that gauntlet. I have no problem with him losing to darkseid.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The gauntlet essentially gives you infinite abilities in your own universe. "One trick pony" may be how he uses it, but that's just...stupid. He's supposed to be a calculating mega-genius. He'd certainly know more than I would to pause time and form a f~$#ing plan. That was just really bad choreography on DB's part.

As for Goku vs. Supes, I'd agree with Tac - Goku isn't really a threat to anyone living; he doesn't fight to kill unless he absolutely has to, and he'd probably ask Supes to fight somewhere safe that they couldn't hurt anyone else. Supes would never kill Goku in that scenario, and if you don't kill him, he just keeps coming back stronger, and stronger, and stronger, and stronger, thanks to Zenkai boosts, so...while Supes would win rounds 1-???, eventually Goku would win - and you KNOW he wouldn't quit trying until he did.

While we're on the subject, Cloud vs. Link was BS. You give Link his end-of-the-game gear, and Cloud gets a Buster Sword and some s%!@ materia? GTFOH! Even discounting summons entirely, Cloud would make Link his b@!!@ with decent gear.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Eh I just wrote it off as more of Freehold's pro-DC, anti-MCU proselytizing.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bizarro Freehold wrote:
Eh I just wrote it off as more of Freehold's pro-DC, anti-MCU proselytizing.

I dont understand. I love MCU. I just hate Deadpool.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Huh, I got the impression you'd bailed on the whole enterprise after Whedon's films.

151 to 200 of 248 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Off-Topic Discussions / IF you had the Infininity Gauntlet, what would you do? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.