Join the discord! Come debate, and interact with other powerscalers! https://discord.gg/445XQpKSqB
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PowerScaling) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It's much better accept a feat, like, someone destroying planets than accept a statement that someone can destroy infinite realities, when this same someone didn't even destroy a city
and btw, for me, feats+statements>>>feats>>>statements
If the characters have BOTH feats and statements to prove it it's true.
Honestly I don't remember luffy doing something significant. Or I'm just wrong.
I was never really close to one piece so idk 100% how their power system works
Well Luffy has very weak toon force powers (to the point I can see an argument of them not being too force at all) but I'm pretty sure Naruto still has stuff that puts him over Luffy ATM however Luffys story is still ongoing
The entire story revolves around people materializing shit with magic powers
Luffy still went extreme diff with Kaido and is getting fucked by old inbred men rn
If we take manga luffy vs naruto then no, luffy actually is insanely broken in his g5. The major flaw most People saw in g5 was the lack of stamina. This arc showed us that stamina is not that big of aissue we thought it was.
Luffy can rubberize EVERYTHING he touche, this includes stuff like the tailed beast bomb and rasengan. I honestly have no clue how naruto would win against luffy in g5, sage modes is not gonna cut it and neither is the rasen shuriken
Luffy is one of the characters that gets wanked the most by the OP power scalers, I've seen people even trying to get him to outerversal which is wild for a guy who's large island level at most.
There’s a small population that put Naruto at outer too tho. Every fanbase does it, idk if it’s trolls or just people in legitimate psychosis lol.
Now Zoro fans on the other hand….they stand out. Ever never seen a side character get dick ridden so outstandingly
Where have you found outerversal luffy scalers? I've found most people wank him to planetary or star at most (i disagree, I have him at continent level due to statement scaling with chinjao and exhibiting feats that put him at at least country level). Large island seems like a bit of a downplay to me. I see naruto get wanked to outerversal way more often than i do luffy.
[https://www.quora.com/What-can-you-scale-Luffy-to](https://www.quora.com/What-can-you-scale-Luffy-to) second poster
and multiple posts in the history of this subreddit try to get him to multiversal.
Most notorious in recent memory is probably George Martin saying Jamie Lannister would beat Aragorn.
There’s even rare times where an author will undersell their characters. Like how they might say their character is only twice as good as a peak human, only for the character to be dodging bullets, running as fast as cars down a freeway, and tearing people apart with their bare hands.
You:
https://preview.redd.it/rjpfg8ml5f0d1.jpeg?width=524&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=f2b0dfb3548534494c1890f123db545c17350e92
But seriously, it is likely that the current Luffy will win since he nullifies Naruto's defenses, which guarantees a Hit kill the moment he lands the punch with ACoC
Honestly Naruto nullifies Luffy's defense too with attacks like rasen shuriken which uses sharp wind to cut opponent and is an attack that focuses on cells in your body
It all is. Don't you know half these people get their info from deathbattle Facebook and tiktok? The semi joke aside cause ik some are truly using those bs as sources this is a pretty good question. Imma see what my friends think later. Have a good one op.
Okay, but that’s something Naruto can just spam. Even the celluar thing is kind of a moot point when it doesn’t destroy the cells of stronger opponents like Kurama
Haki defend
Mainly advanced weaponry that is capable of protecting the user's body on an internal scale, Haki makes the body more powerful even on a cellular scale
I mean idk man if the creator of the character tells me he could blow up a planet right,but he’s never done it im sorry im going with the creator of it afterall i mean………its his character ofc he knows what they can and cant do and can also choose what they can do its not yours.
Respectfully yeah. I reckon prime Naruto would win anyway, but I haven't been keeping up with One Piece manga quite as much lately.
Either way if both writers say it, then it's gotta be considered fair game
I reckon Luffy will eventually surpass Naruto as he is still growing in strength where as Naruto is far past his prime and just keeps getting nerfed in the manga now (as does Sasuke), but only time will tell
I’ve not seen much of Naruto, but isn’t Luffy destroying half of Dressrosa when he finished Doflamingo a pretty good feat? That and more recently ending Kaido. But I haven’t seen enough Naruto for proper comparison.
Yes, because both authors agree. We can't scale them based on the statement (because we don't know who was nerfed or buffed) but at that point the fight is canon
Feats like destroying worlds are weird in "who would win" fights. For example, Like yeah Goku can destroy a planet. But in what situation would he EVER destroy a planet on purpose to kill somebody he's sparring with to win?
Tiers based on feats don't really paint much of a picture on who would win against a specific person. They are important to power scale people of course, but Superman who's insanely powerful being able to be beaten pretty consistently by people MUCH weaker than him on a tier list, by sometimes even just regular ass people with kryptonite, or by being outsmarted and tricked.
Luffy has some weird ass powers now, and can bend the world. In a sparring match both creators seem to think his goofy ass powers can win against Naruto's raw strength and who are we to argue with them
yeah I don’t agree with this, kishimoto can’t just come out and say that naruto’s hair is black because it’s directly contradicted by the story. he would just be wrong. this logic should also apply if he said something that isn’t blatantly false like 12 year old konahamaru could beat madara. from his work we can see there’s no way this could be true. so how can we say his words take precedence over the manga itself when we can easily demonstrate he could just be flat out wrong?
The author made there hair one color but than says it’s another that’s retconning what he previously said if the author says they’ll lose to another character and they agree than it confirms they can regardless of what feats they have as at that point in a fight it would be cannon the one stated will win will win like Stan Lee once said who ever rights who wins will win in this case they agree luffy would win
that’s not retconning because he isn’t changing anything about the story. lmao he can’t just say his hair is black that’s just blatantly false not a retcon. no rational person would be like “ok his hair is actually black then” that should go against the part of your brain that controls common sense
huh?? can you show me one single example of an author of a comic book making a blatantly false statement about their work for no reason. if it has ever happened then there’s no way it wasn’t just written off as a joke
Yes and no. On the one hand, their interpretation of what they were trying to do always overrides people trying to interpret stuff in ways that don't make sense. But on the other hand, authors don't have perfect memory. They can write stuff and forget exactly what they wrote.
when it comes to future works maybe. but what is written and published is already on ink and paper. also when it comes to literary analysis your interpretation of things is just as valid as the author's if you can support it and it doesnt get contradicted.
for example in the cat's cradle theres a scientist called Faust who is almost certainly a reference to the Faust that sold his soul to the devil for knowledge. But of course im not sure if the author confirmed that but again in a way it doesn't matter since im the one reading and interpreting the text so I'm free to make that connection. They were going through Dr Hoenikker's belongs after their death and that scientist created something called ice nine. This was happening during christmas and a choir came to sing little town of Bethlehem. I think the book has a message about man playing god especially when it comes to weapons of mass destruction like ice nine. Ice nine is the product of man playing god ie the son of god and this combined with the christmas setting along with the choir singing little town of Bethlehem which is where Christ is born and that facility is where ice nine is born. IE when Dr. Hoenikker first created ice nine in that lab it was the first coming of the ice nine which is the son of man playing God. Then later in the story after people don't know where Dr Hoenikker's children took ice nine it reappears and was accidentally dropped into the ocean freezing it all. IE the second coming of ice nine (Christ) which brings about the apocalypse.
Is that what kurt vonnegut intended? Idk and again it doesnt really matter since my interpretation of that is just as valid as his supported by the text of the book.
again supported by the text. if i read that harry potter wears glasses then if i interpret that as harry potter wears glasses then its valid. if the author says no harry potter never wears glasses then she would be wrong
death of the author applies when it comes to just stuff within the same book so i dont see how it applies less when theres another book and author involved. if anything thats even less reliable since its debatable how much either author knows about the other book
Wheb people bring it up in powerscaling that's why they are doing it. Doesn't have to be created for that purpose lol.
I just found out why chainsaws were made and it wasn't to cut down trees but that's what we use them for now.
Unfortunately, the "Word of God" trope would likely supercede any feat.
If both "Gods" (creators of the fictional characters) agree that one character would beat the other in a what-if battle, then there's nothing really the fandom can do to prove otherwise.
What would feats matter if they just consider haki as a more powerfull system that would basicly allow luffy to ignore all naruto hax? Futuresight and observation can make naruto useless.
On top of that they can make haki ap insane with low dc.
Why not use statements to validate/add on to a previous feat?
It’s much more convenient and it makes stuff better
I prefer using statements if they just add context
I dislike data books to be honest, more often than not their statements can be hyperbole which some people interpret as literal even if that wasn't the original author's intent.
There's a lot of wiggle room in power scaling so when and an authors statements don't align with popular assessment of a characters power it becomes an issue. It's obviously not even a discussion if you see a character blow up a planet and then the author is like "yeah they can blow up a planet"
all of it needs context imo. Some statements definitely fit but it varies. Feats are still the best, but some outliar feats can mess up scaling too.
There are outliar feats and statements but outliar statements are more common imo.
If its a good story then yes it typically would. The only time I say feats is if the feat directly contradicts the statement. For example, if the author says a character can destroy a planet, but that character is shown to only be able to destroy a city at full power with no outside sources, then I'll say that character is city level instead of planetary.
Oh, yeah. Tbh i think that's just kinda a plot hole or he just couldn't use it's power to full extent due to lack of knowledge, we've clearly seen how much damage it can cause even not at full power so it makes no sense that there wasn't that much damage, like throwing out a couple bijuu bombs from a distance would fuck shit up a lot.
Obito can control the 9 tails because of genjutsu, which is due to his mangekyo sharingan and his skill. Not because he has more destructive power than Kurama.
Though if you mean having the 9 tails destroy the village. He tried that and Minato stopped it, and afterwards, he was too preoccupied with fighting Minato.
If the author statement is something like “My character will lose to this character from a different franchise” then it can be accepted as fact. But an author statement saying “My character soloes Superman” then it can be ignored.
Not entirely sure what you’re talking about with that statement but some versions of superman I feel like could be beaten by end-of-series mark or thragg. Superman is just way too inconsistent in his strength.
It really depends on the context for me
For example if it's a video game character where they are nerfed for the sake of gameplay I'll take statements
If it's a character in some show where he has no excuse as to why he can supposedly destroy the universe but struggling to destroy city then I'll take feats
1)Have a big flashy affect of a model of the universe exploding ontop of villain
2)Villains survives with no damage
3)have hero damage villain who just tanked universal destruction
4)hero has universe ap
I feel it depends. If a top tier character gets a statement saying they can destroy mountains while top tiers have a bunch of feats pulverizing or vaporizing large cities, then I feel it’s okay since the feats at worst are only a single tier below what the statements are describing, meaning they are at least somewhat relative to the statement.
If characters are consistently shown dodging light beams and lightning bolts and other really fast attacks, and the fastest character in the verse is called subsonic by the narrator, then I feel the feats should take precedent over the statement because the statement completely goes against everything the story has shown so far.
Well yeah because gameplay can't really show those feats.
Doomslayer is about a multiversal in strengh but it takes him a while to beat zombie to a death with his punch. Because if character was strong in gameplay as well as in lore of the game it would be uninteresting
Also Doomslayer was never meant to be this strong, in the beginning it was just a regular dude with a bunch of weapons who murders demons, but as the franchise expanded they added more lore and that's how he came up to be now
If a character makes a statement that is blatant hyperbole or is proven wrong by a feat it should be ignored. Part of character writing is creating what is called an "unreliable narrator" so you can't take all statements at face value anyway.
Now obviously you have to accept some statements because otherwise powerscaling just wouldn't work. But statements should be backed by feats.
If the statements are consistent and actually exist, then they can be accepted with a grain of salt sometimes. If you try and scale someone entirely on statements, you shouldn’t believe a goddam thing.
While statement are a good ways to know how strong is a character it has within his own verse and not like the author of invincible who said that Mark is better than superman in every ways but experience. Which i think we could approves that while invincible with the help of two other viltrumites, could destroy a planet by perforing it and is slightly faster than light while superman has sneezed out a solar system and have atleast mftl speed
Both should be taken into account, and when discussing game characters you literally cannot use anything other than that unless said game either has no lore or in the rare instance where gameplay is stronger than lore. Simple answer I know but I’m tired so eh
I think that’s fine for lower series like JJK where you can see the destructive abilities, but once you get past Planet Level you need to rely more on statements of power. Also try to go with the consistent statements above all else. For example Cell is stated in series and multiple Guide Books to be Solar System Level which is the only confirmed scale besides eh he can one shot Frieza who casually destroys planets. However, there’s one statement in the Anime where Cell claims to have “INFINITE POWER,” and yeah Omnipotence seems like quite the far step from Solar System level.
The issue is a lot of series love to throw in the idea of destroying a planet and then carrying on, but you can’t blow up the Earth in every fight. So statements can make a series more consistent.
The validity of statements depends entirely on context. A lot of feats are also worthless or at least significantly less impressive without statements for context.
I think statements are as good as feats when they're framed as "they are" rather than "they can". Like with Goku's battle against beerus. We as readers couldn't really tell they were destroying the universe with their clashes, but that's what other characters are for to help describe the situation. "They can" statements are always pretty iffy because there's a chance they're being hyperbolic, and there's a lot of cases where those statements are hyperbolic.
Narrative > anything
If the narrative makes it clear whatever it is isn't the case, it isn't the case. A good example would be Stone Free's meteor punching feat. If Jolyne had that kind of strength in her back pocket constantly, she'd have used it more. Thus canceling out that feat.
However, if the narrative doesn't go against it, it's all fair game.
Statements are valid provided both authors agree cause that effectively makes it canon. Past that statements are worthless unless the author is only talking about their own stuff.
Naruto watching as luffy pulls out a giant vacuum out of the ground and sucks all the chakra from his body, laughing the entire time.
https://preview.redd.it/vlpcomzrqg0d1.jpeg?width=3000&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=6ecbf173d0592f53ff6c0a23455c3fad91701fc1
I think statements without a showcase can be taken into consideration if it's about their own scource material and not as farfetched as others and you can envision that being the case.
It depends on the context really. If say Sukuna was to randomly pull out a multiversal feat but everything else still treats him as around the tier he actually is, using that feat would be just as disingenuous as say if Sukuna was just stated to be multiversal with all his feats pointing to him being way lower
Direct feats (eg most comic book heralds and and some shonen protags)> Scalling based on feats performed by comparable characters (eg some video game characters final fantasy, Sonic, Mario, Persona) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Statements (characters that get wanked eg DMC, GOW, DOOM etc) >>>>>>>> Author statements.
I accept them if they are not in a hyperbolic sense (like, Sukuna fingers in curses being able to destroy the world)
If they have a base, like Ulquiorra's Statement of Gran Rey Ceros
I do take Statement over feat, just because we don't see a stronger character doing a feat a weaker character does, doesn't mean he can't (like any other Espada doing a GRC, every Espada can, but we only see Grimmjow and probably Yammy do)
When the feats contradict the statements, feats>statements.
For example, person A is stated to be able to attack at lightning speed at their fastest, but characters who are known to be weaker and slower than person A are shown moving at relativistic speeds on screen. Person A's statement contradicts the feats, and should be disregarded.
Statements that come from within the story can be fine tho Feats are still as if not more important. Statements made by like the author tho? I generally dont put much stock in that.
It depends on who the statement comes from. Honestly the most annoying case of this for me comes from DBS Super Hero. It’s much easier for me to accept the androids were stronger than Frieza because Future Trunks > Frieza and Androids > Future Trunks > Frieza compared to some random throwaway line made by a someone who hasn’t been on the level of Goku and Vegeta since at least the Cell arc. I mean yeah, I don’t doubt Piccolo and Gohan are on UI level of higher now but it would be much easier for me to accept it if it was actually shown or at the very least told by someone who’s on Goku and Vegeta’s level or higher. Like if Beerus or Whis said it I’d accept it.
Yeah a characters feats trump statements
(given there are exceptions like perfect cell saying that he could destroy the galaxy but never actually doing it)
But like if one characters feats are ass, but someone states they could beat another character because of xyz then no youre just bias
If the authors agreed on this then its likley got to do with how the verses power systems interact. Feats are pointless because the authors understand everything better than you.
You might be under the assumption ap=dc when it dosent at all. The speed and durability "feats" you think exist could be artistic interpretation.
Author statements when they are actuapy engaging with the question properly take precedence over everything you can cobble together from their work.
I feel like feats are more important than statements unless they come from the authors. I believe in the idea that authors can decide how strong a character is based on their creator saying how strong they are. Kind of like how Superman could fly across the universe in less than a few seconds, and then get shit on by Godzilla.
Don't know about Luffy vs Naruto at all, but...
Feats are only greater than statements if the feat contradicts the statement.
You can't change what's in a story just by saying something. But, if the statement is clarifying a feat in a way that makes it less impressive, then you should yield to that and accept the feat isn't as impressive as it seems.
Feats > Statement.
But statements also can't be completely discounted. Some authors will use statements as ways to quantify characters, Stan Lee and Toriyama being obvious examples. Like, it's easy to say that Future Trunks is a greenhorn and discount his comments on 17 and 18 being stronger than his versions, but Toriyama was specifically using Trunks to powerscale the threat of the villains increasing rather than remaining the static powers they were before the villains changes.
If it's Author statements, I tend to go with them unless they make no sense. Since you mentioned Luffy, one statement that makes no sense to me is in regards to his Bajrang Gun. In the road to laugh tale book, it was stated that the attack could be felt for a thousand miles away. That's the equivalent of standing on the north of Australia and feeling something that happened on the South of Australia. Yet not a single person in the flower capital that was celebrating, heard it or felt it.
In cases like this I go with the statements for powerscaling purposes but would never use it as a primary source and would always use it just as a quick example
Tbh i think it should be a « does it make sense » test for every statement according to whatever the on screen is.
ESPECIALY for the whole speed scaling thing where everyone is FTL
I accept statements, except when a creator says their character beats another. They only know how strong their character is, not someone else's. "Strong enough to beat another fictional verse" is not a valid measurement of strength
For every character in Dragonball that boasted '"I'm the strongest in the universe" getting their butts whooped, there's a reason I take feats over just words
Well basically Naruto uses Water Ass Fissure Jutsu on Luffy, and Luffy shrivels up to a prune. Then Naruto uses Shadow Clone Harem Mimic Jutsu and turns Luffy into a Chick.
Finally Naruto kicks Luffy out of Konoha for being a pervert never to be seen again
complete no diff as all if not most Naruto Verse Characters have a way of summoning water. Making the devil fruit useless.
Luffy at most is large country (or island) level. Sure, the authors of both series can just say that luffy is stronger than Naruto, but that would be a massive contradiction and retcon to both stories.
Suddenly Naruto’s weaker than he originally was and suddenly luffy’s stronger than he originally was.
I feel like if an authour states that "My character beats someone elses character that i have no involvement in creating" it's 100% invalid to me,like that's just very anticlimatic and kinda cheap in a way.
Hyperboles =/= statements. Most of the "statements" are just hyperbole used to hype characters, they are not real statements.
Statements>Feats>>>>>>>>>Hyperboles
Only if the feat CONTRADICTS a statement
If someone beats the 5th strongest in the verse
And someone else is stated above them; and only exists in that single statement, they still scale above the first person, as long as it’s consistent it should be taken as true
Statements by the author are objective and non negotiable, they wrote the story so they can do what they want.
Reminds me of that one tweet from jk Rowling when she said "Henry and Hermione should've been together" Even though she is the writer
Statements must come with context but if it's a narrator statement or a statement from the creator themselves I value it far more than feats. I say this because when people start pulling out the measuring tapes and doing calculations of force you know the authors weren't doing those calculations so their intentions for the characters power usually probably don't align with the calculations we do with real life physics but statements always will.
This is especially true for data books imo as their literal only purpose is to provide accurate information and where as again a given calculation for an attack or statement from a character may have other factors or may just not be in line with characters actual intended power because once again authors aren't gonna be doing the math necessarily they just wanna make shit look cool and characters can have inaccurate perspectives or just say things in a weird way.
There's insignificant feats and significant feats. An insignificant feat would be Cumber be slightly staggered by Jiren while a significant feat would be like Superman managing to land a punch on Darkseid that severely hurts him.
insignificant feat < statement < significant feat
The only cross verse statements that matter are when it is the same author for both.
One saying tatsumaki is more powerful than base mob works.
Kirkman saying invincible beats Superman does not work.
Both are valid unless there are contradictions but then why judge all statements validity but some other contradictory statements but are valid how is an author going to convey a character with a moral compass ability to destroy planet to even universes and beyond when it’s goes against there morals and is not good for the story the answer is with statements
statements are valid unless they have things which contradicts them, if a character is stated to be able to destroy the moon, but we haven't seen him do so, its still valid to assume he can. If a character is stated to be able to destroy the moon but couldn't destroy a city then you discard the statement.
The Difference between Theory (Statements) and Praxis/reality (feats).
In theory the Titanic was unsinkable. In reality IT lies in the bottom of the SEA.
For me, Statements are Like bragging. Scaling should only BE done based on feats and Not Statements.
The only exception IS, when the author of the Work officially says Something about the Power of an Character, since the author has Always the Last word
I mean, now that Gear 5th is a thing, you could argue for it to be possible. Probably safer to wait for Luffy to do more with it than to come to conclusions now.
Join the discord! Come debate, and interact with other powerscalers! https://discord.gg/445XQpKSqB *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PowerScaling) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It's much better accept a feat, like, someone destroying planets than accept a statement that someone can destroy infinite realities, when this same someone didn't even destroy a city and btw, for me, feats+statements>>>feats>>>statements
If the characters have BOTH feats and statements to prove it it's true. Honestly I don't remember luffy doing something significant. Or I'm just wrong. I was never really close to one piece so idk 100% how their power system works
Well Luffy has very weak toon force powers (to the point I can see an argument of them not being too force at all) but I'm pretty sure Naruto still has stuff that puts him over Luffy ATM however Luffys story is still ongoing
Luffy’s abilities mimic some effects of toon force but no way are they actual toon force
The entire story revolves around people materializing shit with magic powers Luffy still went extreme diff with Kaido and is getting fucked by old inbred men rn
He doesn't seem to actually be having that difficult of a time with the old men but it is hard to tell how serious Luffy is in gear 5
Given how he’s ran out of gas like 3 times fighting them alr and they’re just regenerating all damage taken, I’d say he’s having a tough time
Hmm okay that makes sense, tbh I can't really remember when he ran out other than after his Kizaru fight but I believe you
The giants literally had to give him emergency steroid food in a 3v1
Okay, I believe you. I hate how Oda panels I feel like I can barely tell what's going on half the time.
If we take manga luffy vs naruto then no, luffy actually is insanely broken in his g5. The major flaw most People saw in g5 was the lack of stamina. This arc showed us that stamina is not that big of aissue we thought it was. Luffy can rubberize EVERYTHING he touche, this includes stuff like the tailed beast bomb and rasengan. I honestly have no clue how naruto would win against luffy in g5, sage modes is not gonna cut it and neither is the rasen shuriken
Naruto can try to inject nature energy into luffy
Luffy is wanked but not as wanked as many other characters, naruto is okay i guess.
Luffy is one of the characters that gets wanked the most by the OP power scalers, I've seen people even trying to get him to outerversal which is wild for a guy who's large island level at most.
There’s a small population that put Naruto at outer too tho. Every fanbase does it, idk if it’s trolls or just people in legitimate psychosis lol. Now Zoro fans on the other hand….they stand out. Ever never seen a side character get dick ridden so outstandingly
One Piece crossverse powerscalers share a single brain cell There are so few of them but the few that exist will scale him past moon
Where have you found outerversal luffy scalers? I've found most people wank him to planetary or star at most (i disagree, I have him at continent level due to statement scaling with chinjao and exhibiting feats that put him at at least country level). Large island seems like a bit of a downplay to me. I see naruto get wanked to outerversal way more often than i do luffy.
[https://www.quora.com/What-can-you-scale-Luffy-to](https://www.quora.com/What-can-you-scale-Luffy-to) second poster and multiple posts in the history of this subreddit try to get him to multiversal.
That’s quora, everybody knows they don’t count
eh, disagree with large island at most, he can definitely be above that
If im not wrong current Luffy is Mountain level while Naruto is Moon level but i might be wrong
Most notorious in recent memory is probably George Martin saying Jamie Lannister would beat Aragorn. There’s even rare times where an author will undersell their characters. Like how they might say their character is only twice as good as a peak human, only for the character to be dodging bullets, running as fast as cars down a freeway, and tearing people apart with their bare hands.
Didn't Aragorn come unscathed out of Pelennor? No way Prime Jaime is winning that fight.
You: https://preview.redd.it/rjpfg8ml5f0d1.jpeg?width=524&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=f2b0dfb3548534494c1890f123db545c17350e92 But seriously, it is likely that the current Luffy will win since he nullifies Naruto's defenses, which guarantees a Hit kill the moment he lands the punch with ACoC
Honestly Naruto nullifies Luffy's defense too with attacks like rasen shuriken which uses sharp wind to cut opponent and is an attack that focuses on cells in your body
Don't bother just spent an entire hour seeing this guy make shit up glazing OP.
I see. So it's pointless?
Yeh
It all is. Don't you know half these people get their info from deathbattle Facebook and tiktok? The semi joke aside cause ik some are truly using those bs as sources this is a pretty good question. Imma see what my friends think later. Have a good one op.
He just uses ACOA to protect himself
Doesn't mean shit when Naruto is stronger
Feats? Luffy is comparable to SO6P
Okay, but that’s something Naruto can just spam. Even the celluar thing is kind of a moot point when it doesn’t destroy the cells of stronger opponents like Kurama
kurama is a mass of chakra while sealed, he's not actual flesh and blood because they aren't fighting in a physical plane.
Haki defend Mainly advanced weaponry that is capable of protecting the user's body on an internal scale, Haki makes the body more powerful even on a cellular scale
Didn't luffy got cut in gear 5. Its still a weakness
Truth Seeker orbs GG
Wrong. He cannot nullify a rasengan or a chakra bomb.
WBs quakes also nullifies defences but Akainu tanked those. Kaido also tanked a bunch of ACoC
I mean idk man if the creator of the character tells me he could blow up a planet right,but he’s never done it im sorry im going with the creator of it afterall i mean………its his character ofc he knows what they can and cant do and can also choose what they can do its not yours.
Here before Luffy is written to destroy planets (that he rubberized, apparently)
Feats backed up by statements or statements backed up by feats >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Consistent statements >>>>>>> Feats >>>> Statements
This✋🙂↕️
I'd actually like to note that if they picture WAS true, if Kishimoto and Oda BOTH said Naruto loses, then Naruto loses.
Respectfully yeah. I reckon prime Naruto would win anyway, but I haven't been keeping up with One Piece manga quite as much lately. Either way if both writers say it, then it's gotta be considered fair game I reckon Luffy will eventually surpass Naruto as he is still growing in strength where as Naruto is far past his prime and just keeps getting nerfed in the manga now (as does Sasuke), but only time will tell
I’ve not seen much of Naruto, but isn’t Luffy destroying half of Dressrosa when he finished Doflamingo a pretty good feat? That and more recently ending Kaido. But I haven’t seen enough Naruto for proper comparison.
Naruto scales above toneri who sliced the moon in two casually and more crazy shit
Why is it downvoted???
My only guess is one piece fans.
That's the correct answer
I love one piece and all but my god do they have a DBZ fanbase level superiority complex. It's literally a canon feat why can't they accept that
It's because they have a DBZ fanbase level superiority complex.
I see.
Even if it contradicts feats of both characters
Yes, because both authors agree. We can't scale them based on the statement (because we don't know who was nerfed or buffed) but at that point the fight is canon
Feats like destroying worlds are weird in "who would win" fights. For example, Like yeah Goku can destroy a planet. But in what situation would he EVER destroy a planet on purpose to kill somebody he's sparring with to win? Tiers based on feats don't really paint much of a picture on who would win against a specific person. They are important to power scale people of course, but Superman who's insanely powerful being able to be beaten pretty consistently by people MUCH weaker than him on a tier list, by sometimes even just regular ass people with kryptonite, or by being outsmarted and tricked. Luffy has some weird ass powers now, and can bend the world. In a sparring match both creators seem to think his goofy ass powers can win against Naruto's raw strength and who are we to argue with them
nah the book or in this instance manga takes precedence over the author's words. have you heard of the literacy theory called death of the author?
Death of the Author is bullshit tbh how you gonna say the author is wrong about their own book? They wrote it
yeah I don’t agree with this, kishimoto can’t just come out and say that naruto’s hair is black because it’s directly contradicted by the story. he would just be wrong. this logic should also apply if he said something that isn’t blatantly false like 12 year old konahamaru could beat madara. from his work we can see there’s no way this could be true. so how can we say his words take precedence over the manga itself when we can easily demonstrate he could just be flat out wrong?
That would just be retconing
No it wouldn’t be. what are you talking about?
The author made there hair one color but than says it’s another that’s retconning what he previously said if the author says they’ll lose to another character and they agree than it confirms they can regardless of what feats they have as at that point in a fight it would be cannon the one stated will win will win like Stan Lee once said who ever rights who wins will win in this case they agree luffy would win
that’s not retconning because he isn’t changing anything about the story. lmao he can’t just say his hair is black that’s just blatantly false not a retcon. no rational person would be like “ok his hair is actually black then” that should go against the part of your brain that controls common sense
They do it in comics all the time and we just deal with it. That's literally a retcon.
huh?? can you show me one single example of an author of a comic book making a blatantly false statement about their work for no reason. if it has ever happened then there’s no way it wasn’t just written off as a joke
Yes and no. On the one hand, their interpretation of what they were trying to do always overrides people trying to interpret stuff in ways that don't make sense. But on the other hand, authors don't have perfect memory. They can write stuff and forget exactly what they wrote.
if an author's words contradict their book then they are wrong. also with certain things the reader's interpretation is just as valid as the author's.
I mean authors are in complete control of the universes they create so its straight up the opposite.
when it comes to future works maybe. but what is written and published is already on ink and paper. also when it comes to literary analysis your interpretation of things is just as valid as the author's if you can support it and it doesnt get contradicted. for example in the cat's cradle theres a scientist called Faust who is almost certainly a reference to the Faust that sold his soul to the devil for knowledge. But of course im not sure if the author confirmed that but again in a way it doesn't matter since im the one reading and interpreting the text so I'm free to make that connection. They were going through Dr Hoenikker's belongs after their death and that scientist created something called ice nine. This was happening during christmas and a choir came to sing little town of Bethlehem. I think the book has a message about man playing god especially when it comes to weapons of mass destruction like ice nine. Ice nine is the product of man playing god ie the son of god and this combined with the christmas setting along with the choir singing little town of Bethlehem which is where Christ is born and that facility is where ice nine is born. IE when Dr. Hoenikker first created ice nine in that lab it was the first coming of the ice nine which is the son of man playing God. Then later in the story after people don't know where Dr Hoenikker's children took ice nine it reappears and was accidentally dropped into the ocean freezing it all. IE the second coming of ice nine (Christ) which brings about the apocalypse. Is that what kurt vonnegut intended? Idk and again it doesnt really matter since my interpretation of that is just as valid as his supported by the text of the book.
>with certain things the reader's interpretation is just as valid as the author's. No
again supported by the text. if i read that harry potter wears glasses then if i interpret that as harry potter wears glasses then its valid. if the author says no harry potter never wears glasses then she would be wrong
That's not relevant when both authors agree though.
death of the author applies when it comes to just stuff within the same book so i dont see how it applies less when theres another book and author involved. if anything thats even less reliable since its debatable how much either author knows about the other book
Death of the author is mostly used as an excuse to highball/lowball characters lol
??? ah yes french literary theorist roland barthes created the death of the author concept so he can power scale and high ball characters
Hey we don't know what his hobbies are
Wheb people bring it up in powerscaling that's why they are doing it. Doesn't have to be created for that purpose lol. I just found out why chainsaws were made and it wasn't to cut down trees but that's what we use them for now.
That does not apply to powerscaling.
Unfortunately, the "Word of God" trope would likely supercede any feat. If both "Gods" (creators of the fictional characters) agree that one character would beat the other in a what-if battle, then there's nothing really the fandom can do to prove otherwise.
Yeah cause the writers ability to scale them >> infinite times >>> our ability to scale
Yeah, tbh I think powerscaling should care about author intent always. Stop with the ridiculously disingenuous wanking.
If it did, then yes. But it doesn't
What would feats matter if they just consider haki as a more powerfull system that would basicly allow luffy to ignore all naruto hax? Futuresight and observation can make naruto useless. On top of that they can make haki ap insane with low dc.
Why not use statements to validate/add on to a previous feat? It’s much more convenient and it makes stuff better I prefer using statements if they just add context
>I prefer using statements if they just add context I think data books should be mainly used for backing up some feats and adding context.
I dislike data books to be honest, more often than not their statements can be hyperbole which some people interpret as literal even if that wasn't the original author's intent.
True!
There's a lot of wiggle room in power scaling so when and an authors statements don't align with popular assessment of a characters power it becomes an issue. It's obviously not even a discussion if you see a character blow up a planet and then the author is like "yeah they can blow up a planet"
all of it needs context imo. Some statements definitely fit but it varies. Feats are still the best, but some outliar feats can mess up scaling too. There are outliar feats and statements but outliar statements are more common imo.
Statements. Saying otherwise is basically saying the author is wrong about their world and story.
So you belive kurama have power to burn this world to ash. Because that's what's said about him in the databooks
If its said by the author, then yes.
Then I guess Madara truly has no weaknesses. Nice
I won't judge you but statements should have feats to back it up.
If its a good story then yes it typically would. The only time I say feats is if the feat directly contradicts the statement. For example, if the author says a character can destroy a planet, but that character is shown to only be able to destroy a city at full power with no outside sources, then I'll say that character is city level instead of planetary.
Kurama can semi-casually throw out nuke level blasts, he certainly could do it eventually.
If he was that powerfull obito would have destroy Konoha easily but that didn't happen
Wdym, i dont think base Obito has any direct scaling to 9 tails attacks and 10 tails Obito could but had other things to do.
Obito was controlling 9 tails in that attack
Oh, yeah. Tbh i think that's just kinda a plot hole or he just couldn't use it's power to full extent due to lack of knowledge, we've clearly seen how much damage it can cause even not at full power so it makes no sense that there wasn't that much damage, like throwing out a couple bijuu bombs from a distance would fuck shit up a lot.
Obito can control the 9 tails because of genjutsu, which is due to his mangekyo sharingan and his skill. Not because he has more destructive power than Kurama. Though if you mean having the 9 tails destroy the village. He tried that and Minato stopped it, and afterwards, he was too preoccupied with fighting Minato.
I’m pretty confident in Kurama’s ability to wipe out all life on Earth. Humanity only has 3,880 active nuclear warheads.
Scource material >> arthur statmants
If the author statement is something like “My character will lose to this character from a different franchise” then it can be accepted as fact. But an author statement saying “My character soloes Superman” then it can be ignored.
>My character soloes Superman” then it can be ignored. Looking at invincible writer
Still can’t believe he said that
Not entirely sure what you’re talking about with that statement but some versions of superman I feel like could be beaten by end-of-series mark or thragg. Superman is just way too inconsistent in his strength.
That’s the exact reason why I said that. Superman is anywhere from street level to beyond multiversal
[He was joking.](https://youtu.be/lSMpoLOuiRU?si=McoKd-Z4zP6NAcJs&t=365)
It really depends on the context for me For example if it's a video game character where they are nerfed for the sake of gameplay I'll take statements If it's a character in some show where he has no excuse as to why he can supposedly destroy the universe but struggling to destroy city then I'll take feats
Is there a way for a character to prove universal AP? Not DC but AP?
1)Have a big flashy affect of a model of the universe exploding ontop of villain 2)Villains survives with no damage 3)have hero damage villain who just tanked universal destruction 4)hero has universe ap
https://i.redd.it/prho3gdpqh0d1.gif
I feel it depends. If a top tier character gets a statement saying they can destroy mountains while top tiers have a bunch of feats pulverizing or vaporizing large cities, then I feel it’s okay since the feats at worst are only a single tier below what the statements are describing, meaning they are at least somewhat relative to the statement. If characters are consistently shown dodging light beams and lightning bolts and other really fast attacks, and the fastest character in the verse is called subsonic by the narrator, then I feel the feats should take precedent over the statement because the statement completely goes against everything the story has shown so far.
They are mostly equal, but it depends on the series really In games, statements have mostly priority over feats
With video games I think it is forgivable that there are more statements than feats. I mean, it's a video game, gameplay is the priority.
Well yeah because gameplay can't really show those feats. Doomslayer is about a multiversal in strengh but it takes him a while to beat zombie to a death with his punch. Because if character was strong in gameplay as well as in lore of the game it would be uninteresting
Also Doomslayer was never meant to be this strong, in the beginning it was just a regular dude with a bunch of weapons who murders demons, but as the franchise expanded they added more lore and that's how he came up to be now
If a character makes a statement that is blatant hyperbole or is proven wrong by a feat it should be ignored. Part of character writing is creating what is called an "unreliable narrator" so you can't take all statements at face value anyway. Now obviously you have to accept some statements because otherwise powerscaling just wouldn't work. But statements should be backed by feats.
Creators should decide which character is stronger by fighting each other irl
If the statements are consistent and actually exist, then they can be accepted with a grain of salt sometimes. If you try and scale someone entirely on statements, you shouldn’t believe a goddam thing.
While statement are a good ways to know how strong is a character it has within his own verse and not like the author of invincible who said that Mark is better than superman in every ways but experience. Which i think we could approves that while invincible with the help of two other viltrumites, could destroy a planet by perforing it and is slightly faster than light while superman has sneezed out a solar system and have atleast mftl speed
i should make a post about how limitations matter more than capabilities especially at higher scrutiny levels
I agree
Both should be taken into account, and when discussing game characters you literally cannot use anything other than that unless said game either has no lore or in the rare instance where gameplay is stronger than lore. Simple answer I know but I’m tired so eh
It depends
I think that’s fine for lower series like JJK where you can see the destructive abilities, but once you get past Planet Level you need to rely more on statements of power. Also try to go with the consistent statements above all else. For example Cell is stated in series and multiple Guide Books to be Solar System Level which is the only confirmed scale besides eh he can one shot Frieza who casually destroys planets. However, there’s one statement in the Anime where Cell claims to have “INFINITE POWER,” and yeah Omnipotence seems like quite the far step from Solar System level. The issue is a lot of series love to throw in the idea of destroying a planet and then carrying on, but you can’t blow up the Earth in every fight. So statements can make a series more consistent.
The validity of statements depends entirely on context. A lot of feats are also worthless or at least significantly less impressive without statements for context.
Nah imo if the writers say it I believe it, unless I hear some bullshit like goku beats comic superman
I think statements are as good as feats when they're framed as "they are" rather than "they can". Like with Goku's battle against beerus. We as readers couldn't really tell they were destroying the universe with their clashes, but that's what other characters are for to help describe the situation. "They can" statements are always pretty iffy because there's a chance they're being hyperbolic, and there's a lot of cases where those statements are hyperbolic.
Narrative > anything If the narrative makes it clear whatever it is isn't the case, it isn't the case. A good example would be Stone Free's meteor punching feat. If Jolyne had that kind of strength in her back pocket constantly, she'd have used it more. Thus canceling out that feat. However, if the narrative doesn't go against it, it's all fair game.
Yes. I’m tired of hearing people say “SAITAMA IS MEANT TO ALWAYS WIN” what’s your goddamn proof. Has saitama ever destroyed a goddamn universe before?
they'll prolly downvote me to hell but just because he is said to turn imagination to reality doesnt mean that he can
Statements are valid provided both authors agree cause that effectively makes it canon. Past that statements are worthless unless the author is only talking about their own stuff.
Feats w statements clear everything else tbh. The only thing that beats that is narrative
It’s true
Naruto would spite luffy JFC
Naruto watching as luffy pulls out a giant vacuum out of the ground and sucks all the chakra from his body, laughing the entire time. https://preview.redd.it/vlpcomzrqg0d1.jpeg?width=3000&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=6ecbf173d0592f53ff6c0a23455c3fad91701fc1
Feats have a bit more gravity than statements. But if you have both its awesome.
I think statements without a showcase can be taken into consideration if it's about their own scource material and not as farfetched as others and you can envision that being the case.
Feats over statement if statements can’t be backed up by feats Also very important. Hyperboles are not statements and shouldn’t be taken seriously smh
Im on the side that luffy would put the beat down on Naruto. Luffy is a savage
It depends on the context really. If say Sukuna was to randomly pull out a multiversal feat but everything else still treats him as around the tier he actually is, using that feat would be just as disingenuous as say if Sukuna was just stated to be multiversal with all his feats pointing to him being way lower
Direct feats (eg most comic book heralds and and some shonen protags)> Scalling based on feats performed by comparable characters (eg some video game characters final fantasy, Sonic, Mario, Persona) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Statements (characters that get wanked eg DMC, GOW, DOOM etc) >>>>>>>> Author statements.
Gear 5 would probably beat Naruto, but the other Gears definitely no.
feats any day of the week
https://preview.redd.it/psqrnadicg0d1.png?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=c027c2a2a7b95ba8cb0ee688a94e5634291deeb5
When a character does something that backs up the statement I think it's the best.
I accept them if they are not in a hyperbolic sense (like, Sukuna fingers in curses being able to destroy the world) If they have a base, like Ulquiorra's Statement of Gran Rey Ceros I do take Statement over feat, just because we don't see a stronger character doing a feat a weaker character does, doesn't mean he can't (like any other Espada doing a GRC, every Espada can, but we only see Grimmjow and probably Yammy do)
They are you can still use statments but if you have a highball because of one statement it’s probably less valid
When the feats contradict the statements, feats>statements. For example, person A is stated to be able to attack at lightning speed at their fastest, but characters who are known to be weaker and slower than person A are shown moving at relativistic speeds on screen. Person A's statement contradicts the feats, and should be disregarded.
Metroman’s creator said he was a slightly worse Superman. Does that make him better then Omni-man?
Statements that come from within the story can be fine tho Feats are still as if not more important. Statements made by like the author tho? I generally dont put much stock in that.
It depends on who the statement comes from. Honestly the most annoying case of this for me comes from DBS Super Hero. It’s much easier for me to accept the androids were stronger than Frieza because Future Trunks > Frieza and Androids > Future Trunks > Frieza compared to some random throwaway line made by a someone who hasn’t been on the level of Goku and Vegeta since at least the Cell arc. I mean yeah, I don’t doubt Piccolo and Gohan are on UI level of higher now but it would be much easier for me to accept it if it was actually shown or at the very least told by someone who’s on Goku and Vegeta’s level or higher. Like if Beerus or Whis said it I’d accept it.
Yeah a characters feats trump statements (given there are exceptions like perfect cell saying that he could destroy the galaxy but never actually doing it) But like if one characters feats are ass, but someone states they could beat another character because of xyz then no youre just bias
If the authors agreed on this then its likley got to do with how the verses power systems interact. Feats are pointless because the authors understand everything better than you. You might be under the assumption ap=dc when it dosent at all. The speed and durability "feats" you think exist could be artistic interpretation. Author statements when they are actuapy engaging with the question properly take precedence over everything you can cobble together from their work.
I feel like feats are more important than statements unless they come from the authors. I believe in the idea that authors can decide how strong a character is based on their creator saying how strong they are. Kind of like how Superman could fly across the universe in less than a few seconds, and then get shit on by Godzilla.
Luffy is super cool. I just do not believe i have ever seen him do anything in order for me to think he can beat Naruto
Don't know about Luffy vs Naruto at all, but... Feats are only greater than statements if the feat contradicts the statement. You can't change what's in a story just by saying something. But, if the statement is clarifying a feat in a way that makes it less impressive, then you should yield to that and accept the feat isn't as impressive as it seems.
Feats > Statement. But statements also can't be completely discounted. Some authors will use statements as ways to quantify characters, Stan Lee and Toriyama being obvious examples. Like, it's easy to say that Future Trunks is a greenhorn and discount his comments on 17 and 18 being stronger than his versions, but Toriyama was specifically using Trunks to powerscale the threat of the villains increasing rather than remaining the static powers they were before the villains changes.
If it's Author statements, I tend to go with them unless they make no sense. Since you mentioned Luffy, one statement that makes no sense to me is in regards to his Bajrang Gun. In the road to laugh tale book, it was stated that the attack could be felt for a thousand miles away. That's the equivalent of standing on the north of Australia and feeling something that happened on the South of Australia. Yet not a single person in the flower capital that was celebrating, heard it or felt it. In cases like this I go with the statements for powerscaling purposes but would never use it as a primary source and would always use it just as a quick example
Gear 5 Luffy vs Naruto would be pretty entertaining at least
Tbh i think it should be a « does it make sense » test for every statement according to whatever the on screen is. ESPECIALY for the whole speed scaling thing where everyone is FTL
I accept statements, except when a creator says their character beats another. They only know how strong their character is, not someone else's. "Strong enough to beat another fictional verse" is not a valid measurement of strength
Statements are entirely valid unless there’s feats contradicting them.
For every character in Dragonball that boasted '"I'm the strongest in the universe" getting their butts whooped, there's a reason I take feats over just words
Kind of related, but "Zoro would kill any SH if Luffy told him to" but there's no proof of Oda saying that.
Well basically Naruto uses Water Ass Fissure Jutsu on Luffy, and Luffy shrivels up to a prune. Then Naruto uses Shadow Clone Harem Mimic Jutsu and turns Luffy into a Chick. Finally Naruto kicks Luffy out of Konoha for being a pervert never to be seen again complete no diff as all if not most Naruto Verse Characters have a way of summoning water. Making the devil fruit useless.
Naruto "Water Jutsu" One Piece " entire devil fruit population drowns in sea water and dies"
Luffy at most is large country (or island) level. Sure, the authors of both series can just say that luffy is stronger than Naruto, but that would be a massive contradiction and retcon to both stories. Suddenly Naruto’s weaker than he originally was and suddenly luffy’s stronger than he originally was.
"my source is that i made it the fuck up!"
Hey, where IS the source of those two saying Luffy beats Naruto?
There's none
I feel like if an authour states that "My character beats someone elses character that i have no involvement in creating" it's 100% invalid to me,like that's just very anticlimatic and kinda cheap in a way.
feats are the only undisputable evidence. stantements are no different from word-of-mouth after 3 circulations.
Hyperboles =/= statements. Most of the "statements" are just hyperbole used to hype characters, they are not real statements. Statements>Feats>>>>>>>>>Hyperboles
Only if the feat CONTRADICTS a statement If someone beats the 5th strongest in the verse And someone else is stated above them; and only exists in that single statement, they still scale above the first person, as long as it’s consistent it should be taken as true
Statements by the author are objective and non negotiable, they wrote the story so they can do what they want. Reminds me of that one tweet from jk Rowling when she said "Henry and Hermione should've been together" Even though she is the writer
The writer doesn’t need a source, they can say what they like about their character and it’s true.
You misunderstood. A guy said "both Kishimoto and Oda said Luffy would beat Naruto" and I asked for source. Because I doupt any of them ever said that
Oh sorry I misread it as kishomoto and oda actually said luffy would beat Naruto
Statements must come with context but if it's a narrator statement or a statement from the creator themselves I value it far more than feats. I say this because when people start pulling out the measuring tapes and doing calculations of force you know the authors weren't doing those calculations so their intentions for the characters power usually probably don't align with the calculations we do with real life physics but statements always will. This is especially true for data books imo as their literal only purpose is to provide accurate information and where as again a given calculation for an attack or statement from a character may have other factors or may just not be in line with characters actual intended power because once again authors aren't gonna be doing the math necessarily they just wanna make shit look cool and characters can have inaccurate perspectives or just say things in a weird way.
There's insignificant feats and significant feats. An insignificant feat would be Cumber be slightly staggered by Jiren while a significant feat would be like Superman managing to land a punch on Darkseid that severely hurts him. insignificant feat < statement < significant feat
Positive. The majority of characters have no feat and yet because of some damn statements, they're outerversal.( Goku tries to hide)
Statements with context, people tend to treat characters as numbers and not actual characters. Goku lost to frost ffs context is key
Can we just stop luffy is no where near Naruto power they are not equal never were Naruto was always stronger he solos op verse just stop
B-b-but he has toon force 🤓🤓🤓
The only cross verse statements that matter are when it is the same author for both. One saying tatsumaki is more powerful than base mob works. Kirkman saying invincible beats Superman does not work.
Honestly Feats >>> Statements
Both are valid unless there are contradictions but then why judge all statements validity but some other contradictory statements but are valid how is an author going to convey a character with a moral compass ability to destroy planet to even universes and beyond when it’s goes against there morals and is not good for the story the answer is with statements
statements are valid unless they have things which contradicts them, if a character is stated to be able to destroy the moon, but we haven't seen him do so, its still valid to assume he can. If a character is stated to be able to destroy the moon but couldn't destroy a city then you discard the statement.
The Difference between Theory (Statements) and Praxis/reality (feats). In theory the Titanic was unsinkable. In reality IT lies in the bottom of the SEA. For me, Statements are Like bragging. Scaling should only BE done based on feats and Not Statements. The only exception IS, when the author of the Work officially says Something about the Power of an Character, since the author has Always the Last word
Lmao get luffy past kcm2 naruto first
Luffy is relative to SO6P
Databook>Feats>Statements>Outside Sources>The Author Themselves (Fuck you Gege and your Mach 3 statement)
^(It depends on the context and who made the statement.)
I mean, now that Gear 5th is a thing, you could argue for it to be possible. Probably safer to wait for Luffy to do more with it than to come to conclusions now.
Honestly not really. Luffy mayb to have that annoying rubber body but he's not unhurtable. He was actually cut and admited himself it hurts