Avengers Dark Avengers series discussion (Spoilers)

[Zombipanda]

I like how The Sentry pretty much explains the problem of an omnipowerful/omnibenevolent being.

Being omni anything implies that you contain all aspects of said characteristic, with the positive aspects and negative aspects ultimately neutralizing eachother. To be omnipowerful implies to be both the strongest and weakest being in existance, while being omnibenevolent (or omnigood) would imply being not only being the most heroic thing in existance but also the most villainous. The Sentry/Void paradox capitalizes on this brillliantly, and the fact that he has actually accomplished nothing as a character would only make it more perfect if Bendis actually did it on purpose.

Hm. I don't think that's a proper analysis. Omni-powerful means you're all-powerful. Weakness isn't a "type" of power. It's a lack of power. By the same token, most theologians would argue that evil is merely an absence of good. If a cup is filled with water, you don't say that the cup is full of water but also empty of water. It's just full of water. It encompasses all of the space inside the cup.

 

[Gemini]

Okay okay, didn't explain it right

An object/property/characteristic is defined by what it is, and what it is not. being omni-anything implies that it encompasses all that what that trait has, and all that it does not. For example an omni-island would contain all that defines an island and all that doesn't, so it would be the absolutely most perfect island of all time, but it would be completely under-water and then not be an island at all.

infinitely powerful would be closer to what you're explaining, omnipowerful encompasses all levels of power at the same time, from a be all end all ultimate power, to a complete and utter lack of power, to being essentially a power sponge absorbing the power you do not have, and everything in between, possesing all this at once would result in an essential neutrality.

infini means the ultimate expression of the descriptor, omni means every expression of the descriptor

 

[Zombipanda]

Okay okay, didn't explain it right

An object/property/characteristic is defined by what it is, and what it is not. being omni-anything implies that it encompasses all that what that trait has, and all that it does not. For example an omni-island would contain all that defines an island and all that doesn't, so it would be the absolutely most perfect island of all time, but it would be completely under-water and then not be an island at all.

infinitely powerful would be closer to what you're explaining, omnipowerful encompasses all levels of power at the same time, from a be all end all ultimate power, to a complete and utter lack of power, to being essentially a power sponge absorbing the power you do not have, and everything in between, possesing all this at once would result in an essential neutrality.

infini means the ultimate expression of the descriptor, omni means every expression of the descriptor

Dude. No. Just.... No. You're taking the prefix and breaking it down to its most pedantic form and missing the point.

If a being is omniscient, they don't know everything and know nothing, because "nothingness" doesn't exist. It's just the absence of something.

Similarly, if you have a snail that can't push a pebble and you have an elephant that can move a boulder, an omnipowerful being wouldn't possess both the power to move a boulder and the inability to move a pebble. The inability to move a pebble is the same power, but incomplete. The power of the snail isn't define by what it can't do, only by what it can. If an omnipowerful being contains the strength of the snail and the strength of the elephant, it can move everything up to the size of a pebble, but it can also move everything up to the size of a boulder. The absence of power doesn't preclude anything.

Even all that aside, it comes down to an issue of semantics. Omnivores don't eat metals or radioactive materials or plasma.
The word you're looking for is omnipotence, incidentally, which is defined as....

1 : the quality or state of being omnipotent
2 : an agency or force of unlimited power

 

[E]

An object/property/characteristic is defined by what it is, and what it is not.

Okay.

being omni-anything implies that it encompasses all that what that trait has, and all that it does not. For example an omni-island would contain all that defines an island and all that doesn't, so it would be the absolutely most perfect island of all time, but it would be completely under-water and then not be an island at all.

No. That doesn't even make sense.

 

[Captain Canuck]

I like how The Sentry pretty much explains the problem of an omnipowerful/omnibenevolent being.

Being omni anything implies that you contain all aspects of said characteristic, with the positive aspects and negative aspects ultimately neutralizing eachother. To be omnipowerful implies to be both the strongest and weakest being in existance, while being omnibenevolent (or omnigood) would imply being not only being the most heroic thing in existance but also the most villainous. The Sentry/Void paradox capitalizes on this brillliantly, and the fact that he has actually accomplished nothing as a character would only make it more perfect if Bendis actually did it on purpose.

Hm. I don't think that's a proper analysis. Omni-powerful means you're all-powerful. Weakness isn't a "type" of power. It's a lack of power. By the same token, most theologians would argue that evil is merely an absence of good. If a cup is filled with water, you don't say that the cup is full of water but also empty of water. It's just full of water. It encompasses all of the space inside the cup.

Okay okay, didn't explain it right

An object/property/characteristic is defined by what it is, and what it is not. being omni-anything implies that it encompasses all that what that trait has, and all that it does not. For example an omni-island would contain all that defines an island and all that doesn't, so it would be the absolutely most perfect island of all time, but it would be completely under-water and then not be an island at all.

infinitely powerful would be closer to what you're explaining, omnipowerful encompasses all levels of power at the same time, from a be all end all ultimate power, to a complete and utter lack of power, to being essentially a power sponge absorbing the power you do not have, and everything in between, possesing all this at once would result in an essential neutrality.

infini means the ultimate expression of the descriptor, omni means every expression of the descriptor

Dude. No. Just.... No. You're taking the prefix and breaking it down to its most pedantic form and missing the point.

If a being is omniscient, they don't know everything and know nothing, because "nothingness" doesn't exist. It's just the absence of something.

Similarly, if you have a snail that can't push a pebble and you have an elephant that can move a boulder, an omnipowerful being wouldn't possess both the power to move a boulder and the inability to move a pebble. The inability to move a pebble is the same power, but incomplete. The power of the snail isn't define by what it can't do, only by what it can. If an omnipowerful being contains the strength of the snail and the strength of the elephant, it can move everything up to the size of a pebble, but it can also move everything up to the size of a boulder. The absence of power doesn't preclude anything.

Even all that aside, it comes down to an issue of semantics. Omnivores don't eat metals or radioactive materials or plasma.
The word you're looking for is omnipotence, incidentally, which is defined as....

1 : the quality or state of being omnipotent
2 : an agency or force of unlimited power

Gemini, ZP is right.

 

[Gemini]

Fine whatever

 

[Captain Canuck]

So if Sentry is omnipotent can he microwave a burrito so hot that even he can't eat it?

 

[AnTwan]

So if Sentry is omnipotent can he microwave a burrito so hot that even he can't eat it?

Given enough monkeys with typewriters, yes.

 

[vmenge]

Fine whatever

:lol:

 

[Jaggyd]

Actually, I'd say Sentry is the most text book example of a Deus ex Machina in Marvel's books. Kinda like how Batman was for a while, and Barry Allen currently is to a lesser extent. Most writers are guilty of it from time to time.

 

[E]

Actually, I'd say Sentry is the most text book example of a Deus ex Machina in Marvel's books.

Absolutely. At least the way he's been used thus far.

He doesn't have to be. I actually like the idea of him being a deus ex machina but having whatever he does to save the day start to have huge repercussions. If he just comes in and saves the day then gets locked in a padded room it's not interesting at all. He *should* be able to save the world in ridiculous, over-the-top ways but then having everyone pay for it; for using him. Equal and opposing force and all that.

 

[E]

Just read issues 13-15 and it's a shame how Bendis is destroying the character of the Sentry. He's turned him into a meth addict that found the secret potion because he was looking for drugs.

Norman Osbourn has a team of scientists synthesizing the serum (why don't you have them recreate the Captain America serum while you're at it?) so Sentry can stay doped up.

And Bullseye choked Lindy to death and dropped her into the ocean.

 

[Captain Canuck]

Just read issues 13-15 and it's a shame how Bendis is destroying the character of the Sentry. He's turned him into a meth addict that found the secret potion because he was looking for drugs.

actually, that's right out of Sentry Reborn (Paul Jenkins and JRJR)

 

[E]

actually, that's right out of Sentry Reborn (Paul Jenkins and JRJR)

Ugh! No wonder I forgot about it. That was a terrible series.

 

[Bass]

I think it's funny that when the Sentry was brought into NEW AVENGERS it was all, "We have a tendency to not use awesome characters that new writers invent!" and the 'new' characters were (wait for it); Sentry, Echo, Jessica Jones, and Ares.

Sentry went from a rather good take on Marvelman to over-used, junkie version of Superboy Prime who just kills people (by tearing them in half every time) because he might be a bit evil, we don't know since he never has any emotional responses to anything. Except for those times where he cries and shouts.

Echo went from an interesting take on Elektra to the secret identity of Ronin, which was self-defeating since more people had heard of Ronin than Echo. Elektra then came back and Echo became completely marginalized since "deaf" isn't enough of a character trait.

Jessica Jones went from an out-of-nowhere sleeper character that was a fun superhero take on the film noir; the private detective with the messed up past. Unfortunately, much like Sentry, once her past was revealed, she ran out of steam, but got overused and Bendis, refusing to let her be sidelined, has her become completely intertwined with everyone from the start of the Marvel universe even though she was only just created and hasn't actually done anything ever.

Ares went from a merciless, war-addicted god to ***** parent in his first issue, and never really went anywhere. Then he returned, and Bendis not only made him more of a ***** as he took orders from anyone who gave them to him, but he also made him stupider than D-Man as his only reaction to anything, ever, is to fight it. Loudly. He was so one-note the Spartans of 300 would've told him to shut up.

This all culminates in an ultimate act of ruination; Ares picks a fight with the Sentry who tears him in half.

How lucky we are to have these characters brought back again and again for our reading pleasure.

 

[bluebeast]

I think it's funny that when the Sentry was brought into NEW AVENGERS it was all, "We have a tendency to not use awesome characters that new writers invent!" and the 'new' characters were (wait for it); Sentry, Echo, Jessica Jones, and Ares.

Sentry went from a rather good take on Marvelman to over-used, junkie version of Superboy Prime who just kills people (by tearing them in half every time) because he might be a bit evil, we don't know since he never has any emotional responses to anything. Except for those times where he cries and shouts.

Echo went from an interesting take on Elektra to the secret identity of Ronin, which was self-defeating since more people had heard of Ronin than Echo. Elektra then came back and Echo became completely marginalized since "deaf" isn't enough of a character trait.

Jessica Jones went from an out-of-nowhere sleeper character that was a fun superhero take on the film noir; the private detective with the messed up past. Unfortunately, much like Sentry, once her past was revealed, she ran out of steam, but got overused and Bendis, refusing to let her be sidelined, has her become completely intertwined with everyone from the start of the Marvel universe even though she was only just created and hasn't actually done anything ever.

Ares went from a merciless, war-addicted god to ***** parent in his first issue, and never really went anywhere. Then he returned, and Bendis not only made him more of a ***** as he took orders from anyone who gave them to him, but he also made him stupider than D-Man as his only reaction to anything, ever, is to fight it. Loudly. He was so one-note the Spartans of 300 would've told him to shut up.

This all culminates in an ultimate act of ruination; Ares picks a fight with the Sentry who tears him in half.

How lucky we are to have these characters brought back again and again for our reading pleasure.

Don't forget the Hood. He was there too.

 

[Iceshadow]

Hey! Ares: Dark Reign was quite good, and his portrayal in Incredible Hercules is awesome.

 

[Gideon Stargrave]

Hey! Ares: Dark Reign was quite good, and his portrayal in Incredible Hercules is awesome.

His portrayal in Hercules was meant to be comedic though; it was still one-note as far as characterization goes.

 

[Iceshadow]

My point is that writers have used him well, just not Bendis.

 

[Zombipanda]

I think it's funny that when the Sentry was brought into NEW AVENGERS it was all, "We have a tendency to not use awesome characters that new writers invent!" and the 'new' characters were (wait for it); Sentry, Echo, Jessica Jones, and Ares.

Sentry went from a rather good take on Marvelman to over-used, junkie version of Superboy Prime who just kills people (by tearing them in half every time) because he might be a bit evil, we don't know since he never has any emotional responses to anything. Except for those times where he cries and shouts.

Echo went from an interesting take on Elektra to the secret identity of Ronin, which was self-defeating since more people had heard of Ronin than Echo. Elektra then came back and Echo became completely marginalized since "deaf" isn't enough of a character trait.

Jessica Jones went from an out-of-nowhere sleeper character that was a fun superhero take on the film noir; the private detective with the messed up past. Unfortunately, much like Sentry, once her past was revealed, she ran out of steam, but got overused and Bendis, refusing to let her be sidelined, has her become completely intertwined with everyone from the start of the Marvel universe even though she was only just created and hasn't actually done anything ever.

Ares went from a merciless, war-addicted god to ***** parent in his first issue, and never really went anywhere. Then he returned, and Bendis not only made him more of a ***** as he took orders from anyone who gave them to him, but he also made him stupider than D-Man as his only reaction to anything, ever, is to fight it. Loudly. He was so one-note the Spartans of 300 would've told him to shut up.

This all culminates in an ultimate act of ruination; Ares picks a fight with the Sentry who tears him in half.

How lucky we are to have these characters brought back again and again for our reading pleasure.

.......

I want Howard the Duck.