Happy anniversary everyone!
1 of 1
- Andy E. Nystrom
- One Above All (Adminstrator)
Offline 
- From: Victoria, BC
- Registered: 1/03/2020
- Posts: 6,852
All-New OHOTMU A-Z 2006 #3
Historical text from Comixfan (that abstract being debate was a royal pain to reformat):
Eric J. Moreels
Dec 15, 2005, 04:47 am
Coming in March from Marvel Comics...
ALL-NEW OFFICIAL HANDBOOK OF THE MARVEL UNIVERSE A TO Z #3
Written by JEFF CHRISTIANSEN, MARK O’ENGLISH, RONALD BYRD, MICHAEL HOSKIN, ERIC J. MOREELS, SEAN MCQUAID, STUART VANDAL, BILL LENTZ, RICHARD GREEN, ANTHONY FLAMINI, BARRY REESE, MIKE FICHERA & CHRIS BIGGS
Cover by KEU CHA
The Handbook from A to Z rolls on – including bios on the Cosmic Cube, Crimson Cowl, Darkdevil, Darkstar, Daughters of the Dragon, two Death’s Heads, Demogoblin, Diamondback, Dr. Nemesis, Doop, Dormammu, Drax the Destroyer, Ethan Edwards and more! While the Handbooks of the past two years focused on specific themes, this twelve-issue monthly series will extend the coverage to all Marvel’s characters, teams, objects, events and places – plus past, future and alternate Earths. The spotlight will fall on more than 600 profiles –including new characters, characters who never received a profile and those needing major updates.
64 PGS. NO ADS/T+ SUGGESTED FOR TEENS AND UP ...$3.99
Rayeye
Dec 15, 2005, 10:24 am
Every month I'm looking forward to the newest Handbook issue!
And again, I'm really looking forward to this one. Glad to see Diamondback, Death's Head II and Darkstar are in it!
Looking at the cover, so far the only ones I recognize are: Daughters of the Dragon, Demolition Man, Dead Girl, Demogoblin, two Deathloks (I pressume not the Deathlok from the Alternate Universes issue?), two Death's Heads, Crimson Cowl, Doop, Dormammu and Diamondback.
So I wonder who the others are: the three guys around Diamondback and the guy with the knife?
TheMetalMetrosexual
Dec 15, 2005, 11:02 am
I see all three Death's Heads. Don't recognize the guy in the back in the purple, or the grey and green guy with the shield on the left. But damn, Demogoblin! Yeeeeeeeeeeeeesssssssssssssssssssssss! I love me some Demogoblin!
Rayeye
Dec 15, 2005, 11:07 am
Which one is the third one then?
TheMetalMetrosexual
Dec 15, 2005, 01:58 pm
2 is in the center above D-Man, and to his left are 3, and then 1, with the horns and gun in his hand.
Arescenia Navidad
Dec 15, 2005, 03:58 pm
Darkstar and Dead Girl! :excited:
Stuart V
Dec 15, 2005, 04:17 pm
2 is in the center above D-Man, and to his left are 3, and then 1, with the horns and gun in his hand.
I think the one you believe is the newest Death's Head is actually the newest Deathlok.
TheMetalMetrosexual
Dec 16, 2005, 11:46 am
Nah, DH#3's standing right above the Luthor Manning Deathlok from the 90's. Looks exactly like I've seen from the Amazing Fantsy adverts. (and since you say newest, it kind of makes me wonder if the Deathlok from the short-lived, Joe Casey written Marvel Tech series is there, who is actually the newest. That series was pretty good, much better than the rest of the Marvel Tech line)
Stuart V
Dec 16, 2005, 04:43 pm
TheMetalMetrosexual wrote:
Nah, DH#3's standing right above the Luthor Manning Deathlok from the 90's. Looks exactly like I've seen from the Amazing Fantsy adverts. (and since you say newest, it kind of makes me wonder if the Deathlok from the short-lived, Joe Casey written Marvel Tech series is there, who is actually the newest. That series was pretty good, much better than the rest of the Marvel Tech line)
That's not the new DH. I'm not guessing remember, I know who is in this issue. Though I have to agree it does look a bit like the new DH. And that's not the Luther Manning Deathlok (though this mistake is understandable); Luther Manning got a hefty profile a couple of months back in the Alternate Universes Handbook.
TheMetalMetrosexual
Dec 16, 2005, 07:58 pm
Doh! Micheal Collins, that was it.
DrGoodwrench
Dec 17, 2005, 07:45 am
The guy under Diamondback is Devlor (I think) from Fantastic Force. The one above Dormammu could be Dominic Fortune.
Rayeye
Dec 17, 2005, 06:10 pm
But shouldn't Dominic Fortune be listed under the F?
Stuart V
Dec 17, 2005, 06:30 pm
But shouldn't Dominic Fortune be listed under the F?
Dominic Fortune is a codename, not his real name, so arguably it can be listed under either D or F.
clawsofwolverine
Dec 23, 2005, 04:51 pm
When you guys get to H please don't forget that Duck.
He needs a major update.
frogoat
Jan 10, 2006, 01:33 am
Howard! Oh yes
Rayeye
Jan 12, 2006, 05:16 pm
Yeah, Howard the Duck. Although I don't like that Duck, he's way too important to forget in the Handbooks.
I also hope a lot of Marvel UK characters will make it to the Handbooks of 2006.
Dark Angel was already in the Women of Marvel handbook, which maked me happy and it's good to see Albion and Death's Head II are also included in the 2006 handbooks. So now I hope we will also see Adam Crown, Grace and Breeze.
But I also (really really) hope the Clan Destine will have a profile (as a team, but also of its members: Argent, Cuckoo, Imp, etc.). Alan Davis did a great job on them years ago and it's pity we haven't seen them since then.
Still hoping for 2099 entries (Bloodhawk, La Lunática, Halloween Jack, etc.) too!
Stuart V
Jan 12, 2006, 06:34 pm
Yeah, Howard the Duck. Although I don't like that Duck, he's way too important to forget in the Handbooks.
You'll just have to wait and see.
I also hope a lot of Marvel UK characters will make it to the Handbooks of 2006.
There's a few. Plus, if you check recent entries for the Black Knight, Captain Britain, Jamie Braddock and Psylocke, you'll see we included a lot more of their UK adventures than was previously referenced in older volumes of the Handbooks. Plus we've covered Marvel Italia characters.
Me, I wanted to cover the Marvel Netherlands character I know about - talk about obscure!
Rayeye
Jan 12, 2006, 06:38 pm
Plus we've covered Marvel Italia characters.
Oh, I didn't know Italia had their own Marvel comics, or do you mean Marvel characters who are Italian?
Me, I wanted to cover the Marvel Netherlands character I know about - talk about obscure!
haha
Stuart V
Jan 12, 2006, 07:16 pm
Oh, I didn't know Italia had their own Marvel comics, or do you mean Marvel characters who are Italian?
Marvel UK, France, Italia, Netherlands, and Japan have all, to my knowledge, produced original material - the Japanese stuff wasn't set in the 616 reality, and I'm uncertain about the French tales, but all the rest are part of 616. We covered part of Marvel Italia in Teams 2005, when we featured Euroforce. As for the Dutch character
Rayeye
Jan 13, 2006, 06:49 am
Ah, I already wondered why I never found anything of Euroforce in the comic stores.
Funny, you/Marvel considered the Dutch Spider-Man as 616-continuity.
Stuart V
Jan 13, 2006, 04:32 pm
Ah, I already wondered why I never found anything of Euroforce in the comic stores.
Funny, you/Marvel considered the Dutch Spider-Man as 616-continuity.
There's nothing to prevent it being part of 616.
MrGreen
Jan 14, 2006, 04:24 pm
What week is the issue coming out in January? I haven't been able to find out any information on the first issue on any comic book sites.
Stuart V
Jan 14, 2006, 04:44 pm
What week is the issue coming out in January? I haven't been able to find out any information on the first issue on any comic book sites.
Last week, I believe.
Arescenia Navidad
Jan 15, 2006, 01:39 am
Last week, I believe.
:scared:
What?! I seemed to have missed it.
Zach Kinkead
Jan 15, 2006, 01:47 am
:scared:
What?! I seemed to have missed it.
I think he meant the last week of the month.
Gee, who'd think that a guy named after a mischief god would go around confusing people
Eric J. Moreels
Mar 22, 2006, 01:29 am
Out today!
Complete list of characters with page counts is online here ()!
Plus, the official bibliography is online here ()!
Let us know what you think, thanks!
William Keogh
Mar 22, 2006, 06:26 pm
Bit of a shame not to have seen Dusk from the Slingers in this issue, but hopefully there'll be a 2007 edition, or a couple of pages on the Slingers in a later issue.
Gaara of the Sand
Mar 27, 2006, 01:31 am
Questions about #3:
1. When did Budda, Jesus, God, and Mohommad (or if they are one in the same) meet with the other leaders of Earth's pantheons? Does this also mean that Marvel's official stance is God/Jesus/Mohommad/Budda/etc. are about as powerful as Odin and thus vastly weaker than the likes of the Celestials?
2. Who leads the Egyptian pantheon, Osiris or Horus? It has always been Osiris, but now that "The End" has been considered canon, who leads? Why would Osiris send Horus if indeed Osiris is still the leader?
3. Questlecoutl is mentioned as not being pictured, yet he has ever been the "hero god" of the Aztec pantheon, not the skyfather, at least in all previous continuity. When was it revealed otherwise?
4. When did Ozymandias create a new group of Dark Riders? To the best of my knowledge, Apocalypse is only using Horsemen right now...unless the handful of mutants that joined him are being given that title now, and Ozymandias is being given the credit.
5. So Celestial Quest: Thanos clone or not? It was until you guys said "maybe it wasn't". Is this an official retcon, or is this just an attempt to sow the seeds of confusion?
6. Thanks for reafirming Apocalypse Now as continuity. So many try and say it isn't.
7. Epoch is abstract now?
8. Chronos, a disembodied Eternal, is abstract now?
9. How is Galactus not abstract?
10. Guess I'll have to wait a LONG time till we see more instances of Mephisto being the supposed abstract of evil, eh?
11. When did all of those Avengers create m-bodies?
12. When did Quasar confront Death about his mom? When did she die?
13. Thanks for making sure people realize Dormammu wasn't in the right state of mind during Giffen's Defenders.
Thanks
Eric J. Moreels
Mar 27, 2006, 03:59 am
4. When did Ozymandias create a new group of Dark Riders?
This one I can answer... they debuted in Cable & Deadpool #26.
Might see if I can get that added to the bibliography (especially as we got the Riders of the Dark's first appearance included).
Gaara of the Sand
Mar 27, 2006, 11:09 am
This one I can answer... they debuted in Cable & Deadpool #26.
Might see if I can get that added to the bibliography (especially as we got the Riders of the Dark's first appearance included).
Oh, right, now that you mention it, I recall someone referring to the monster-things Deadpool was fighting as the Dark Riders...or am I remembering everything horribly wrong here?
Stuart V
Mar 27, 2006, 11:43 am
Questions about #3:
1. When did Budda, Jesus, God, and Mohommad (or if they are one in the same) meet with the other leaders of Earth's pantheons? Does this also mean that Marvel's official stance is God/Jesus/Mohommad/Budda/etc. are about as powerful as Odin and thus vastly weaker than the likes of the Celestials?
Budda can be seen at the meeting of Godheads in Thor #300. Marvel doesn't have an official stance on how powerful he (or the others you listed) are in comparison to anyone else. Nothing should be assumed about comparitive power levels of any of the Godheads based purely on them attending a meeting of same - some Godheads are more powerful than others.
2. Who leads the Egyptian pantheon, Osiris or Horus? It has always been Osiris, but now that "The End" has been considered canon, who leads? Why would Osiris send Horus if indeed Osiris is still the leader?
The meeting may well have happened around the time Seth had Osiris imprisoned. Or he might just have been busy, and sent a representative to cover for him.
3. Questlecoutl is mentioned as not being pictured, yet he has ever been the "hero god" of the Aztec pantheon, not the skyfather, at least in all previous continuity. When was it revealed otherwise?
Quetzacoatl attended a Godhead meeting in What If? #38, so he rules or represents the Aztec pantheon in at least some realities. According to mythology, Queztacoatl has occasionally usurped the rule of Tezcatlipoca, the usual ruler.
5. So Celestial Quest: Thanos clone or not? It was until you guys said "maybe it wasn't". Is this an official retcon, or is this just an attempt to sow the seeds of confusion?
Much like Dr Doom soothes his ego by claiming all his defeats are the fault of Doombots, Thanos likes to use the Thanosi as a get out clause when he embarrases himself. While it may be true that it's their doubles much of the time, it isn't always, but even in those cases, Doombots / Thanosi get the blame. We all have our off days, but neither Thanos or Doom like to admit it.
9. How is Galactus not abstract?
He's used M-Bodies to appear places without going to the hassle of traveling there, but he's always been a physical. From the Ohotmu FAQ:
"Another area of contention is Galactus being listed as a physical being (one with a real body) rather than an abstract (one without a real body, such as Death or Eternity, who instead manifests physically through the use of M-Bodies. Simply put, Galactus is a physical being:
in Quasar #38, Quasar wonders why Galactus and the Stranger were at a meeting with abstract beings since they were not abstract, but physical beings. The Contemplator (the real one, not the Skrull imposter) answers that he doesn't know why, and they went to find out. Quasar has studied under Eon and has a decent idea of what's going on, though he could have been mistaken. The Contemplator is extensively educated and highly knowledgable, and he certainly gave no response that would indicate disagreement. Anthropomorpho (whose people provide the M-Bodies used by abstracts) later says "Certain powerful entities also enlist our services so they mat be able to put in appearance somewhere without actually attending. We give our newborns the finite beings to practice on before they are allowed to manifest abstract beings." During this discussion, Galactus (and Galactus only) is pictured in the background. Certainly, Galactus is more than purely physical, he is of cosmic importance; however, he is not an abstract being. Mark Gruenwald wrote the above story, and he invented M Bodies. He clearly saw Galactus as a physical being. Tom Brevoort supports this. Never has there been a story that shows Galactus as a soley abstract being using an M-Body every time he wants to take physical form."
Gaara of the Sand
Mar 27, 2006, 11:53 am
Budda can be seen at the meeting of Godheads in Thor #300. Marvel doesn't have an official stance on how powerful he (or the others you listed) are in comparison to anyone else. Nothing should be assumed about comparitive power levels of any of the Godheads based purely on them attending a meeting of same - some Godheads are more powerful than others.
But they are vastly weaker than the Celestials...that's why they met afterall, right?
The meeting may well have happened around the time Seth had Osiris imprisoned. Or he might just have been busy, and sent a representative to cover for him.
No no, the meeting I ment was from The End, which took place in the modern era, when Seth is more or less dead. And wasn't Horus imprisoned with Osiris? I thought all the gods were, at least the major ones.
Quetzacoatl attended a Godhead meeting in What If? #38, so he rules or represents the Aztec pantheon in at least some realities. According to mythology, Queztacoatl has occasionally usurped the rule of Tezcatlipoca, the usual ruler.
Do What If's and mythology count as continuity now?
Much like Dr Doom soothes his ego by claiming all his defeats are the fault of Doombots, Thanos likes to use the Thanosi as a get out clause when he embarrases himself. While it may be true that it's their doubles much of the time, it isn't always, but even in those cases, Doombots / Thanosi get the blame. We all have our off days, but neither Thanos or Doom like to admit it.
Right, but I don't see what was so off about that...Thanos did what Death and Eternity couldn't do...but in the end, as of now, barring future storylines, was it a clone?
"Another area of contention is Galactus being listed as a physical being (one with a real body) rather than an abstract (one without a real body, such as Death or Eternity, who instead manifests physically through the use of M-Bodies. Simply put, Galactus is a physical being:
in Quasar #38, Quasar wonders why Galactus and the Stranger were at a meeting with abstract beings since they were not abstract, but physical beings. The Contemplator (the real one, not the Skrull imposter) answers that he doesn't know why, and they went to find out. Quasar has studied under Eon and has a decent idea of what's going on, though he could have been mistaken. The Contemplator is extensively educated and highly knowledgable, and he certainly gave no response that would indicate disagreement. Anthropomorpho (whose people provide the M-Bodies used by abstracts) later says "Certain powerful entities also enlist our services so they mat be able to put in appearance somewhere without actually attending. We give our newborns the finite beings to practice on before they are allowed to manifest abstract beings." During this discussion, Galactus (and Galactus only) is pictured in the background. Certainly, Galactus is more than purely physical, he is of cosmic importance; however, he is not an abstract being. Mark Gruenwald wrote the above story, and he invented M Bodies. He clearly saw Galactus as a physical being. Tom Brevoort supports this. Never has there been a story that shows Galactus as a soley abstract being using an M-Body every time he wants to take physical form."
But Galactus decides to be physical, he is a conceptual being, a force of nature, as established by Byrne in the Trial of Reed Richards. Galactus also appeared as a star when he met with Eternity in Sivler Surfer 10. Galactus was also said to be the third force of reality, and has been stated by himself and Death and Eternity as being relatives of their's. The Ultimate Nullifier is also a part of Galactus, and that is a device on par with the Infinity Gauntlet.
Stuart V
Mar 27, 2006, 12:13 pm
But they are vastly weaker than the Celestials...that's why they met afterall, right?
Most of them perhaps, but that doesn't mean Buddha is weaker. Nor does it mean he's stronger.
No no, the meeting I ment was from The End, which took place in the modern era, when Seth is more or less dead. And wasn't Horus imprisoned with Osiris? I thought all the gods were, at least the major ones.
I think you've answered your own question - clearly Horus wasn't imprisoned, or he'd got loose. Hence him attending and not Oriris.
Do What If's and mythology count as continuity now?
For mythological characters, mythology provides evidence (though not automatic confirmation).
Right, but I don't see what was so off about that...Thanos did what Death and Eternity couldn't do...but in the end, as of now, barring future storylines, was it a clone?
The answer is, we don't know for sure. By using the Thanosi as his universal excuse for fouling up, we can't be sure about any of his appearances...except when Squirrel Girl beat him.
But Galactus decides to be physical, he is a conceptual being, a force of nature, as established by Byrne in the Trial of Reed Richards. Galactus also appeared as a star when he met with Eternity in Sivler Surfer 10. Galactus was also said to be the third force of reality, and has been stated by himself and Death and Eternity as being relatives of their's. The Ultimate Nullifier is also a part of Galactus, and that is a device on par with the Infinity Gauntlet.
Anthropomorpho ought to know the difference. He can be a "force of nature" and still be a physical being. He can look different to different people and still be physical. He can be "related" to Death and Eternity and still be physical. None of your examples prove he's abstract, or counter the fairly explicit evidence that he is physical.
Gaara of the Sand
Mar 27, 2006, 01:49 pm
Most of them perhaps, but that doesn't mean Buddha is weaker. Nor does it mean he's stronger.
Why would they meet if not because of the threat of the Celestials?
Also, the gods agreed to stay out of mortal affairs, does this mean that the gods of the major faiths today also agreed to this?
I think you've answered your own question - clearly Horus wasn't imprisoned, or he'd got loose. Hence him attending and not Oriris.
No, the thing is that The End took place 30+ years (our time) after the Egyptian gods had been freed. Osiris was free, he was with Odin during the Infinity Gauntlet debacle and he was with the other gods to test King Thor, but why was it Horus who attended the meeting in The End?
Anthropomorpho ought to know the difference. He can be a "force of nature" and still be a physical being. He can look different to different people and still be physical. He can be "related" to Death and Eternity and still be physical. None of your examples prove he's abstract, or counter the fairly explicit evidence that he is physical.
But it has been stated that Galactus is unique unto himself, why couldn't he be a physical abstract? Afterall, Epoch was physical, and he died from physical damage, and you are considering him to be an abstract entity.
And how can you be a force of nature and be physical?
How can a conceptual being be labeled physical? He is only physical when those viewing him conceive him as such (or when he wishes to be), he can just as easily be metaphysical for those who would see him that way, could he not?
And how can he be related to Death and Eternity and not be abstract? It has always been explicitly stated when they mentioned their relations, that Galactus was related to them, not by his job, but as a family.
Also, how can the third force of reality be physical when the first two are not?
Stuart V
Mar 27, 2006, 04:07 pm
Why would they meet if not because of the threat of the Celestials?
The group met because of the threat of the Celestials. That does not necessarily mean that some of the Godheads couldn't be a match or superior to the Celestials. Basically, what I'm trying to say is someone (artist or writer) thought it'd be a nice idea to slip Buddha, etc, into the background of the Godheads meetings. However, given that no one wishes to cause offense to the various active / major religions, just because he's attending doesn't mean anyone should read it as meaning that Marvel are saying the Celestials are more powerful. It could also mean that he's there to show support or observe, but that maybe he could personally step in and whip all the Celestials with one hand tied behind his back if he chose to do so , but hey, he's Buddha, he's easy going, non-interventionist and believes people need to learn wisdom and grow, plus being so wise he knows it'll all work out okay anyway. And even if we weren't talking about an active religious icon, someone's presence at that meeting doesn't automatically mean they are less powerful than the Celestials. A writer could come along and show Tomazooma (for instance) beating on a Celestial, and say that he was just bluffing the other gods and the Celestials when it was stated he was too weak to do so prior to that. Serial fiction with multiple writers - there are no absolutes.
Also, the gods agreed to stay out of mortal affairs, does this mean that the gods of the major faiths today also agreed to this?
Again, draw no conclusions. They might have agreed, they might have not been involved in that agreement, there might be another explanation. Until we see a scene showing them signing up to the mortal affairs non-deity proliferation treaty, we can't be sure.
No, the thing is that The End took place 30+ years (our time) after the Egyptian gods had been freed. Osiris was free, he was with Odin during the Infinity Gauntlet debacle and he was with the other gods to test King Thor, but why was it Horus who attended the meeting in The End?
Because Osiris was having his hair done? The End isn't 616. We can't be sure what happened there holds for 616, though we do know similar events happened in 616. Even if Osiris was around, he might have had a reason to send Horus to represent him at the meeting. Again, we just can't draw a conclusion from this, because there is insufficient data.
But it has been stated that Galactus is unique unto himself, why couldn't he be a physical abstract?
"Certain powerful entities also enlist our services so they mat be able to put in appearance somewhere without actually attending. We give our newborns the finite beings to practice on before they are allowed to manifest abstract beings." During this discussion, Galactus (and Galactus only) is pictured in the background.
That dialogue from Anthropomorpho is pretty clear. Galactus is not an abstract.
Afterall, Epoch was physical, and he died from physical damage, and you are considering him to be an abstract entity.
What makes you say Epoch was physical?
And how can you be a force of nature and be physical?
Hail and snow are forces of nature, and both are physical.
How can a conceptual being be labeled physical? He is only physical when those viewing him conceive him as such (or when he wishes to be), he can just as easily be metaphysical for those who would see him that way, could he not?
Professor X could do the same "Each of you see me as one of your own race" trick if he wanted (though not on the same scale). Affecting perceptions is not proof of being an abstract.
And how can he be related to Death and Eternity and not be abstract? It has always been explicitly stated when they mentioned their relations, that Galactus was related to them, not by his job, but as a family.
You're talking about this like there are hard scientific laws backing this up - "An abstract being cannot be related to a physical one". We don't know they can't be. We only know what we have been shown - and we've been shown that Eternity and Death are abstracts, but that Galactus is physical.
Also, how can the third force of reality be physical when the first two are not?
Maybe that's an important facet of the balance they represent, maybe it's just the way it is and there isn't any real reason behind it.
Gaara of the Sand
Mar 27, 2006, 10:22 pm
The group met because of the threat of the Celestials. That does not necessarily mean that some of the Godheads couldn't be a match or superior to the Celestials. Basically, what I'm trying to say is someone (artist or writer) thought it'd be a nice idea to slip Buddha, etc, into the background of the Godheads meetings. However, given that no one wishes to cause offense to the various active / major religions, just because he's attending doesn't mean anyone should read it as meaning that Marvel are saying the Celestials are more powerful. It could also mean that he's there to show support or observe, but that maybe he could personally step in and whip all the Celestials with one hand tied behind his back if he chose to do so , but hey, he's Buddha, he's easy going, non-interventionist and believes people need to learn wisdom and grow, plus being so wise he knows it'll all work out okay anyway. And even if we weren't talking about an active religious icon, someone's presence at that meeting doesn't automatically mean they are less powerful than the Celestials. A writer could come along and show Tomazooma (for instance) beating on a Celestial, and say that he was just bluffing the other gods and the Celestials when it was stated he was too weak to do so prior to that. Serial fiction with multiple writers - there are no absolutes.
Again, draw no conclusions. They might have agreed, they might have not been involved in that agreement, there might be another explanation. Until we see a scene showing them signing up to the mortal affairs non-deity proliferation treaty, we can't be sure.
But we didn't see God there, that was an add in, so why can nothing else be infered? All evidence points to those gods being of the same general power level, and there would be no need to discuss the Celestial threat if there was no threat.
Because Osiris was having his hair done? The End isn't 616. We can't be sure what happened there holds for 616, though we do know similar events happened in 616. Even if Osiris was around, he might have had a reason to send Horus to represent him at the meeting. Again, we just can't draw a conclusion from this, because there is insufficient data.
That's just what I wanted to hear ^_^ I'm glad The End isn't canon, just something similar, which means it could have been anything that would lead to Thanos being not so evil...like just talking with Warlock...seems to do the job normally.
What makes you say Epoch was physical?
Epoch was born of a physical being, Eon. How can a physical being give birth to an abstract?
Hail and snow are forces of nature, and both are physical.
They are aspects of weather, not forces of nature. Weather is a force of nature. Evolution is a force of nature. But the rocks and the trees are just a part of nature. The snow and hail are just frozen pieces of water.
Professor X could do the same "Each of you see me as one of your own race" trick if he wanted (though not on the same scale). Affecting perceptions is not proof of being an abstract.
But Galactus doesn't affect it, he can, but he doesn't normally. Galactus is viewed as the races would view their destroyer (or other related figure).
You're talking about this like there are hard scientific laws backing this up - "An abstract being cannot be related to a physical one". We don't know they can't be. We only know what we have been shown - and we've been shown that Eternity and Death are abstracts, but that Galactus is physical.
So we also don't know that abstracts cannot be physical, correct?
Maybe that's an important facet of the balance they represent, maybe it's just the way it is and there isn't any real reason behind it.
Maybe, but nothing has even hinted at that.
Stuart V
Mar 28, 2006, 01:49 am
But we didn't see God there, that was an add in, so why can nothing else be infered? All evidence points to those gods being of the same general power level, and there would be no need to discuss the Celestial threat if there was no threat.
Read what I said. Thor (when he was alive) attended meetings with the Avengers - but he had much more sheer, raw power than most of them. They'd sometimes discuss threats which he personally could have turned into tiny stains on the ground if he chose to unleash that full power without caring about the consequences. What evidence do we have that each and every god present is at around the same power level?
Epoch was born of a physical being, Eon. How can a physical being give birth to an abstract?
I repeat what I said before "You're talking about this like there are hard scientific laws backing this up - "An abstract being cannot be related to a physical one". We don't know they can't be." Maybe its a form of evolution.
They are aspects of weather, not forces of nature. Weather is a force of nature. Evolution is a force of nature. But the rocks and the trees are just a part of nature. The snow and hail are just frozen pieces of water.
Semantics. Your interpretation of what can be called a force of nature differs from mine. So when people have described Galactus as a force of nature, does that literally mean he's like the weather? No. Its a vague descriptive term which doesn't really quantify anything except to say he's powerful.
But Galactus doesn't affect it, he can, but he doesn't normally. Galactus is viewed as the races would view their destroyer (or other related figure).
I'm getting forced to keep repeating myself. Again, "Affecting perceptions is not proof of being an abstract." Whether Galactus normally does so consciously or unconsciously, him being seen to look different by different races proves squat as to whether he is abstract or physical.
So we also don't know that abstracts cannot be physical, correct?
Given that the definition of being an abstract seems to be that they lack a physical body, it appears unlikely that a being could be both. And as for Galactus, again, I ask you to re-read what I have said.
in Quasar #38, Quasar says Galactus is a physical being, and explicitly notes the big G is not an abstract. Quasar isn't guaranteed to be correct, but given his mentor Eon's teachings on the cosmos, he's got good odds of knowing what he's talking about.
The Contemplator, one of the oldest and most learned of beings, is present when Quasar says this, and in the context in which Quasar brought it up (Why is Galactus, a physical being, present at a meeting of abstracts?) would have corrected Quasar if he felt Galactus was abstract (as that would have answered Quasar's question). And the clincher, Anthropomorpho, who really does know who is physical and who is abstract if anyone does, makes it clear "We give our newborns the finite beings" (picture of Galactus) "to practice on before they are allowed to manifest abstract beings." Anthropomorpho clearly considers Galactus not to be abstract.
RVcousin
Mar 28, 2006, 06:00 am
Hello,
I've got a question about the Copycat entry :
In her group affiliation, you wrote she was, as Domino, a former member of the New Mutants.
However, in the Teams 2005 Handbook, you didn't put her in the members list and it was confirmed on the OHOTMU FAQ page.
According to the "New Mutants Organizational Chart" published in New Mutants Annual #7, she is a former member of the New Mutants.
Gaara of the Sand
Mar 28, 2006, 12:08 pm
Read what I said. Thor (when he was alive) attended meetings with the Avengers - but he had much more sheer, raw power than most of them. They'd sometimes discuss threats which he personally could have turned into tiny stains on the ground if he chose to unleash that full power without caring about the consequences. What evidence do we have that each and every god present is at around the same power level?
I thought Thor did that so the book could be called "Avengers" and not "Amazing Thor" or "Friendly Neighborhood Thor" [img]file:///C:\Users\Andy\AppData\Local\Temp\msohtmlclip1\01\clip_image001.gif[/img]
I repeat what I said before "You're talking about this like there are hard scientific laws backing this up - "An abstract being cannot be related to a physical one". We don't know they can't be." Maybe its a form of evolution.
But it's not evolution, we know Galactus' origin.
Given that the definition of being an abstract seems to be that they lack a physical body, it appears unlikely that a being could be both. And as for Galactus, again, I ask you to re-read what I have said.
So then Eon and Epoch can't be abstract, right?
Inferno
Mar 28, 2006, 12:18 pm
Galactus has never been considered an Abstract being.
Stuart V
Mar 28, 2006, 04:50 pm
But it's not evolution, we know Galactus' origin.
Since I was talking about Eon giving birth to Epoch in relation to the "Maybe its evolution" quote, I don't see why you insist on trying to twist what I was saying to apply to Galactus.
So then Eon and Epoch can't be abstract, right?
When do we get informed that Epoch has a physical form?
Galactus has never been considered an Abstract being.
Correct.
Gaara of the Sand
Mar 28, 2006, 06:30 pm
Since I was talking about Eon giving birth to Epoch in relation to the "Maybe its evolution" quote, I don't see why you insist on trying to twist what I was saying to apply to Galactus.
Whoops, sorry, got confused on that one, my bad.
When do we get informed that Epoch has a physical form?
Her physical form was removed from Eon's dead body, wasn't it? Quasar has been helping to raise her. Nothing has hinted that she or Eon were abstract, only physical.
Also, if Eon and Chronos are abstract, what are they the abstracts of?
Madison Carter
Mar 28, 2006, 09:01 pm
Whoops, sorry, got confused on that one, my bad.
Her physical form was removed from Eon's dead body, wasn't it? Quasar has been helping to raise her. Nothing has hinted that she or Eon were abstract, only physical.
Also, if Eon and Chronos are abstract, what are they the abstracts of?
M-Body form removed from M-Body dead form, I would think.
Eon was the embodiment of time, as stated in the Master Edition.
Gaara of the Sand
Mar 28, 2006, 11:49 pm
M-Body form removed from M-Body dead form, I would think.
Why would Eon hold an m-body of Epoch in his body? Also, killing an m-body does not kill the entity, but that is what Maelstrom did to Eon. Eon even said he has a physical body.
Eon was the embodiment of time, as stated in the Master Edition.
Eon was a time being, but Eternity/Infinity embody time.
Eric J. Moreels
Mar 29, 2006, 03:47 am
I've got a question about the Copycat entry :
In her group affiliation, you wrote she was, as Domino, a former member of the New Mutants.
However, in the Teams 2005 Handbook, you didn't put her in the members list and it was confirmed on the OHOTMU FAQ page.
According to the "New Mutants Organizational Chart" published in New Mutants Annual #7, she is a former member of the New Mutants.
Yes, her omission from the Teams Handbook was in error. She joined the team while impersonating Domino just prior to their reorganization into X-Force.
Eon was a time being, but Eternity/Infinity embody time.
And here I always thought they embodied eternity/infinity...
Gaara of the Sand
Mar 29, 2006, 11:13 am
And here I always thought they embodied eternity/infinity...
I'm not sure if you're being serious or not there... :cuckoo:
Also, what does Chronos embody?
And were the concepts that Eon/Epoch and Chronos embody created at the times of their births? Because each one of them was born into the universe, not created with it like the other abstracts...and Galactus :bleep:
Madison Carter
Mar 29, 2006, 11:57 pm
Unfortunately, I think the situation here is that you are looking for absolutes. With the various abstract and major cosmic figures in the MU, there simply aren't any absolutes.
Galactus may be claimed as a relative as abstracts, that does not neccessarily make him an abstract. Eon claimed relation to Eternity.
The way these characters operate are, to be as quaint as possible, beyond our comprehension in many ways I think. Some of their statements may be symbolic, some may be fact, and given the sheer power they possess, there's no real way to set down standards for many. Characters like Galactus and Eon share traits that could make them physical or abstract, or even a third (fourth, fifth, sixth, etc) type. There doesn't have to be a hard and fast rule that they absolutely have to be one or the other.
Gaara of the Sand
Mar 30, 2006, 05:45 pm
Galactus may be claimed as a relative as abstracts, that does not neccessarily make him an abstract. Eon claimed relation to Eternity.
But Eon said he was born of Eternity. Galactus has been called brother by both Death and Eternity, and something tells me they don't all belong to their local chapter of the Freemasons :whistle:
There doesn't have to be a hard and fast rule that they absolutely have to be one or the other.
I never said there had to be, but that is what Loki has been saying. That "physical" and "abstract" cannot be labels for the same being.
Though considering Quasar 38 pretty much showed that every time we see Galactus it's been an M-Body, it would be pretty hard to show that he's a physical being normally.
William Keogh
Mar 30, 2006, 07:41 pm
There's a reference to three Deaths Heads on the cover in an earlier posting, and they're in a line behind Deathlok. Is the third the one from Amazing Fantasy, and if so, should I assume its entry was pulled at the last minute? If that isn't a Deaths Head between the two, then who is it?
Madison Carter
Mar 30, 2006, 11:55 pm
Yes, it's the Death's Head from Amazing Fantasy. This was, as has been stated here and elsewhere, a miscommunication error between the cover artist and the writing team. It was supposed to be the M-Tech Deathlok.
Stuart V
Mar 31, 2006, 01:11 am
But Eon said he was born of Eternity. Galactus has been called brother by both Death and Eternity, and something tells me they don't all belong to their local chapter of the Freemasons :whistle:
You seem determined to ignore the bits of what we say that don't fit with your predetermined argument. We've already gone over the "Galactus is brother to Eternity and Death" ad nauseum. Being related does not mean both have to be physical or both have to be abstract. And given most abstracts seem to be living symbols, a symbolic relationship seems fairly reasonable too.
I never said there had to be, but that is what Loki has been saying. That "physical" and "abstract" cannot be labels for the same being.
Please don't put words in my mouth. What I said was "Given that the definition of being an abstract seems to be that they lack a physical body, it appears unlikely that a being could be both." I didn't say "can't be", I said "appears unlikely".
Though considering Quasar 38 pretty much showed that every time we see Galactus it's been an M-Body, it would be pretty hard to show that he's a physical being normally.
Not at all. First, Quasar #38 didn't show "that every time we see Galactus it's been an M-Body" - that issue actually made a point of asking why Galactus was at a meeting of abstracts when he was a physical being. And, as I said before (and am getting tired of repeating) Anthropomorpho, the being who ought to know if anyone does, about as close to a definitive authority on the subject being written by the writer who was the definitive authority on the subject, made it pretty clear that whatever we might speculate about other cosmic beings, GALACTUS IS NOT AN ABSTRACT.
Madison Carter
Mar 31, 2006, 06:09 am
When I spoke of absolutes, I was not referring to Loki's statement regarding Galactus. That is, as far as what has been stated in Marvel's books, fact. Instead, what I was referring to was the rationalization that Galactus "must be" an abstract if he's "related" to Eternity.
The thing about abstracts that I find a bit funny in this entire conversation is just that: they're abstracts. When you really think about it, how is it possible for a true abstract to have relatives to begin with? At least relatives in the sense of how we think of them? That's why the thing about Galactus is not an absolute in terms of the questions you have asked. Their relation could be anything from symbolic, to Eternity guiding the formation of Galactus, to any other sort of cosmic link between the two. That doesn't negate the fact that Eternity is an abstract and Galactus is not.
Gaara of the Sand
Mar 31, 2006, 02:20 pm
Please don't put words in my mouth. What I said was "Given that the definition of being an abstract seems to be that they lack a physical body, it appears unlikely that a being could be both." I didn't say "can't be", I said "appears unlikely".
Oh come on, that's just the vague language you guys need to use in the Handbooks to keep things from being too absolute for Nu Marvel. Like "seemingly killing him" or "possibly dead."
Anyways, if Eon and Epoch are physical and abstract, how can the argument be made that Galactus isn't abstract because he's physical?
Not at all. First, Quasar #38 didn't show "that every time we see Galactus it's been an M-Body" - that issue actually made a point of asking why Galactus was at a meeting of abstracts when he was a physical being. And, as I said before (and am getting tired of repeating) Anthropomorpho, the being who ought to know if anyone does, about as close to a definitive authority on the subject being written by the writer who was the definitive authority on the subject, made it pretty clear that whatever we might speculate about other cosmic beings, GALACTUS IS NOT AN ABSTRACT.
But we saw that the Galactus who fought Thanos during the Infinity Gauntlet mini was an m-body. That seems like the kind of situation where you really want to be there, not trust a Fractal to do it for you.
When I spoke of absolutes, I was not referring to Loki's statement regarding Galactus. That is, as far as what has been stated in Marvel's books, fact. Instead, what I was referring to was the rationalization that Galactus "must be" an abstract if he's "related" to Eternity.
That's not the only reason I gave, the others were simply thrown out.
The thing about abstracts that I find a bit funny in this entire conversation is just that: they're abstracts. When you really think about it, how is it possible for a true abstract to have relatives to begin with? At least relatives in the sense of how we think of them? That's why the thing about Galactus is not an absolute in terms of the questions you have asked. Their relation could be anything from symbolic, to Eternity guiding the formation of Galactus, to any other sort of cosmic link between the two. That doesn't negate the fact that Eternity is an abstract and Galactus is not.
It's the same reason they speak English, we can see lasers, and we can hear things in outer space. It's science fiction, that's just how it works.
We know that they do have relationships with one another that are always put into words we are familiar with. Eternity and Infinity have called eachother siblings (using "brother" and "sister") and Death and Oblivion did the same thing.
Eternity also had nothing to do with the creation of Galactus. The previous Eternity merged with Galan to form Galactus.
Galactus has more evidence of being abstract than the likes of Eon, Epoch, and Chronos, that much is undeniable fact.
Rayeye
Mar 31, 2006, 03:26 pm
abstract, absolute, ... maybe Galactus will one day pay the Oprah show a visit and tell us all in & outs of himself [img]file:///C:\Users\Andy\AppData\Local\Temp\msohtmlclip1\01\clip_image002.gif[/img]
I just realized Domina didn't make it to the Handbooks. But perhaps her team the Neo will got an entry.
Stuart V
Mar 31, 2006, 04:10 pm
Anyways, if Eon and Epoch are physical and abstract, how can the argument be made that Galactus isn't abstract because he's physical?
First, we don't know Eon and Epoch are both, and we don't know all the rules governing abstracts. But that's a moot point for the central part of this debate. The argument against Galactus being an abstract isn't that he's physical, it is that Anthropomorpho, the one being you can pretty well rely on to know who is physical and who is abstract, describes Galactus as a "finite being", the kind of being his race's newborns practice on BEFORE they get to manifest abstracts. That's an open and shut case, an indisuptable point from an infallible source, written by Mark Gruenwald, the Marvel universe expert who defined the whole idea of abstracts, making him the equally infallible real world authority as to who is and isn't an abstract. If Anthropomorpho / Gruenwald stated Galactus was NOT an abstract, then Galactus is not an abstract. Their word trumps everything and everyone else. THAT is "undeniable fact".
But we saw that the Galactus who fought Thanos during the Infinity Gauntlet mini was an m-body. That seems like the kind of situation where you really want to be there, not trust a Fractal to do it for you.
Guess not. That's circumstantial supposition (not even evidence) which gets wiped out by Anthropomorpho's statement.
Inferno
Mar 31, 2006, 06:30 pm
Loki, I don't think Gaara is ever going to understand he/she is wrong here. Plus, with the "Nu Marvel" comment, I think Gaara is obviously just a trouble maker anyway.
Gaara of the Sand
Apr 1, 2006, 12:30 am
First, we don't know Eon and Epoch are both, and we don't know all the rules governing abstracts. But that's a moot point for the central part of this debate. The argument against Galactus being an abstract isn't that he's physical, it is that Anthropomorpho, the one being you can pretty well rely on to know who is physical and who is abstract, describes Galactus as a "finite being", the kind of being his race's newborns practice on BEFORE they get to manifest abstracts. That's an open and shut case, an indisuptable point from an infallible source, written by Mark Gruenwald, the Marvel universe expert who defined the whole idea of abstracts, making him the equally infallible real world authority as to who is and isn't an abstract. If Anthropomorpho / Gruenwald stated Galactus was NOT an abstract, then Galactus is not an abstract. Their word trumps everything and everyone else. THAT is "undeniable fact".
Anthropromorpho never says Galactus is physical. Quasar does, and Anthropromorpho doesn't say anything else about it other than that some physical beings do make manifestations, but Quasar wasn't only talking about Galactus at the time, and Anthro was shown to be a fairly easy-going and non-confrontational being (like with Magus).
Either way, I think debating this point further isn't going to get us anywhere, so let's move on a bit:
How are Eon, Epoch, and Chronos abstracts? What do they represent, as they were not made at the dawn of the universe? And should having their own bodies preclude them from abstracthood?
Loki, I don't think Gaara is ever going to understand he/she is wrong here. Plus, with the "Nu Marvel" comment, I think Gaara is obviously just a trouble maker anyway.
Oh, I don't think the comment was so far off. With the death of continuity, the Handbooks are forced to use vague and suggestive language for the most part because there is no telling what one writer will retcon/ignore these days. Oh, and while making trouble is always fun, so is debating, especially things I care about...like Galactus [img]file:///C:\Users\Andy\AppData\Local\Temp\msohtmlclip1\01\clip_image002.gif[/img]
Madison Carter
Apr 1, 2006, 03:12 am
How are Eon, Epoch, and Chronos abstracts? What do they represent, as they were not made at the dawn of the universe?
Eon (and Epoch by default) are the gray area I was talking about. Eon was not a physical being in the true sense of the word. He was, as stated in the Offiical Handbook Update 89 and Master Edition entries, a universe unto himself.
However, those same entries state that he is the embodiment of time, and state that he guides certain aspects of evolution.
Chronos I can't answer about, others are more versed in his history than I am. But Eon has traits associated with both physical beings and abstracts. So in that, I would say he is both. And neither.
But that's just me.
Gaara of the Sand
Apr 1, 2006, 01:23 pm
Eon (and Epoch by default) are the gray area I was talking about. Eon was not a physical being in the true sense of the word. He was, as stated in the Offiical Handbook Update 89 and Master Edition entries, a universe unto himself.
I'm pretty sure his physical body was falling out of his little Eonverse and into NYC, threatening to destroy it.
However, those same entries state that he is the embodiment of time, and state that he guides certain aspects of evolution.
Isn't it established fact that Eternity/Infinity embody the space/time continuum?
I mean, talking about guys having their own bodies, Eon told Quasar how big his full body was (900 million miles or some such) and even gave Quasar his heart so that Presence couldn't kill him (still love Ben hiding it).
Chris Day
Apr 8, 2006, 09:23 pm
I finally got issue 3, and once again am impressed with the details and research...
someone forgot to list the Cosmic Construction Worker as an alias/form of Death... or am I missing something?
Stuart V
Apr 8, 2006, 10:43 pm
I finally got issue 3, and once again am impressed with the details and research...
someone forgot to list the Cosmic Construction Worker as an alias/form of Death... or am I missing something?
Second page of the profile, third paragraph. And there's an image of that form on that page too. It's not listed as an alias, as "Cosmic Construction Worker" is not a name.
jannepie
Sep 8, 2006, 10:20 am
I'm a bit behind with my Handbooks and I just started reading #3. I have to say I was quite pleasently surprised to learn that Ukko Ylijumala and other Finnish deities were included in the Council of Godheads entry. I didn't know that Ukko had appeared in comics.
Although I have to confess that I see nothing Finnish in his picture. [img]file:///C:\Users\Andy\AppData\Local\Temp\msohtmlclip1\01\clip_image003.gif[/img]Although I've never seen him portrayed before. Nowadays most of the old beliefs have been forgotten but a lot of the names and beliefs have been absorbed in our language and Christian beliefs. For example "ukkonen" means thunder.
The other Finnish god mentioned in the Handbook was Vammatar, goddess of evil and misfortune. "Vamma" means injury and "-tar" means that the person is female.
Anyway, great surprise for me. Before this all the Finnish Marvel characters I knew were the late Javelin (of Prague Operatic Society) and possibly some Conan characters.
The entry for the Council of Godheads must have taken a lot of research. It was quite full of information. I also enjoyed the Cosmic Cube entry.
Andy E. Nystrom
Apr 7, 2010, 09:21 pm
List of changes in Hardcovers.
Most of this is older info reworked into my new format, but the Daughters of the Dragon changes are new.
Copperhead
Hardcover Volume: 2
Page Count: Unchanged at 1
Text/Graphic Changes: None
Copycat
Hardcover Volume: 2
Page Count: Unchanged at 1
Text Changes: None
Graphic Changes: new captioned secondary shot of her as Domino
Cosmic Cube
Hardcover Volume: 2
Page Count: Increased from 3 to 4
Text Changes: Somewhat revised; revisions including splitting of paragraphs and new text starting on page 2 and continuing thereon here and there.
Graphic Changes: One illo removed (headshot of Kubik), 10 new captioned illos added (including two new headshots and a replacement Kubik illo)
Copycat
Hardcover Volume: 2
Page Count: Unchanged at 3
Text Changes: new paragraphs related to various Pantheons added alphabetically. Old African gods paragraph removed.
Graphic Changes: None
The Crazy Eight
Hardcover Volume: 2
Page Count: Unchanged at 1
Text Changes: None
Graphic Changes: 4 new captioned headshots.
Crimson Cowl
Hardcover Volume: 2
Page Count: Unchanged at 1
Text Changes: new sentence at end of History
Graphic Changes: None
Crimson Dynamo
Hardcover Volume: 3
Now Listed As: Crimson Dynamo (Gavrilov)
Page Count: Unchanged at 1
Text Changes: None
Graphic Changes: One secondary illo now captioned.
Jaine Cutter
Hardcover Volume: 3
Now Listed As: Crimson Dynamo (Gavrilov)
Page Count: Unchanged at 1
Text Changes: Final History paragraph expanded.
Graphic Changes: New captioned secondary illo.
Cyclone
Hardcover Volume: 3
Now Listed As: Crimson Dynamo (Gavrilov)
Page Count: Unchanged at 1
Text Changes: First Appearance expanded. History somewhat expanded.
Graphic Changes: New captioned secondary illo.
Dark Gods
Hardcover Volume: 3
Page Count: Unchanged at 1
Text/Graphic Changes: None
Dark Riders
Hardcover Volume: 3
Page Count: Unchanged at 1
Text Changes: History expanded.
Graphic Changes: First Appearance, Abilities, black bars removed from headshots.
Darkdevil
Hardcover Volume: 3
Page Count: Unchanged at 1
Text Changes: History slightly expanded, at least in second paragraph. Speed on Power Grid revised.
Graphic Changes: Left arm now a bit cut of in main illo.
Darkhold Redeeemers
Hardcover Volume: 3
Page Count: Unchanged at 1
Text/Graphic Changes: None
Darkstar
Hardcover Volume: 3
Page Count: Unchanged at 2
Text Changes: 2nd last old History paragraph expanded; new final paragraph added. Speed on Power Grid revised.
Graphic Changes: New captioned secondary illo.
Daughters of the Dragon
Split into: Misty Knight, Colleen Wing
Hardcover Volume: 6 (Knight), 13 (Wing)
Page Count: Originally 2 total; now 2 each
Text Changes: Both: Vital Statistics revised. History and Abilities/Accessories completely rewritten/expanded. Knight only: Inteliigence, Energy Projection, Fighting Skills on Power Grid revised.
Graphic Changes: Both: Old illos removed, new main illo. Knight: 2 new secondary illos; Wing: 3 new secondary illos
Dazzler
Hardcover Volume: 3
Now Listed As: Dazzler (Worthington)
Page Count: Unchanged at 1
Additional Text/Graphic Changes: None
D’Bari
Hardcover Volume: 3
Page Count: Unchanged at 1
Text Changes: None
Graphic Changes: One caption moved to proper illo and new caption added.
Dead Girl
Hardcover Volume: 3
Page Count: Unchanged at 1
Text Changes: Final History paragraph split in 2 and second half expanded.
Graphic Changes: New captioned secondary illo.
Death
Hardcover Volume: 3
Page Count: Unchanged at 2
Text Changes: New sentence added at end of History and end of Abilities/Accessories.
Graphic Changes: None
Darkdevil
Hardcover Volume: 3
Page Count: Unchanged at 1
Text Changes: New History paragraph added.
Graphic Changes: New captioned secondary illo.
Deathlok (Collins)
Hardcover Volume: 3
Page Count: Unchanged at 2
Text Changes: Final sentence removed from History but new final paragraph added. Strength revised. New captioned secondary illo (“Current Cyborg Form”; possibly inaccurate if he’s no longer a cyborg).
Graphic Changes: None
Deathlok (M-Tech)
Hardcover Volume: 3
Now Listed As: Deathlok (Truman & Young)
Page Count: Unchanged at 1
Text Changes: New sentence added at end of History.
Graphic Changes: 2 new secondary illos.
Death’s Head (FPA)
Hardcover Volume: 3
Page Count: Unchanged at 2
Text Changes: Final History sentence removed, replaced with 2 new sentences. Speed on Power Grid revised.
Graphic Changes: Old secondary illo captioned, no longer cropped; new captioned secondary illo.
Death’s Head (Minion)
Hardcover Volume: 3
Page Count: Unchanged at 2
Text Changes: Speed on Power Grid revised.
Graphic Changes: New captioned secondary illo, 9 captioned new headshots.
Deathweb
Hardcover Volume: 3
Page Count: Unchanged at 1
Text Changes: 3 new captioned headshots.
Graphic Changes: None
Debrii
Hardcover Volume: 3
Page Count: Unchanged at ½
Text Changes: History expanded
Graphic Changes: None
Deluge
Hardcover Volume: 3
Page Count: Unchanged at ½
Text Changes: History tweaked.
Graphic Changes: Right hand no longer visible in original illo; new secondary illo.
Demogoblin
Hardcover Volume: 3
Page Count: Unchanged at 1
Text/Graphic Changes: None
Demolition Man
Hardcover Volume: 3
Page Count: Increased from 1 to 2
Text Changes: Group Affiliation tweaked. History completely revised/expanded.
Graphic Changes: 5 new secondary illos (3 captioned).
Desak
Hardcover Volume: 3
Page Count: Unchanged at 1
Text Changes: Last History paragraph tweaked.
Graphic Changes: None
Desert Sword
Hardcover Volume: 3
Page Count: Unchanged at 1
Text/Graphic Changes: None
Deviants
Hardcover Volume: 3
Page Count: Unchanged at 4
Text Changes: Final History paragraph revised/expanded.
Graphic Changes: Black bars removed from headshots
Devil-Slayer
Hardcover Volume: 3
Page Count: Unchanged at 2
Text Changes: New final History paragraph. Speed on Power Grid revised
Graphic Changes: New secondary illo.
Devlor
Hardcover Volume: 3
Page Count: Unchanged at 1
Text Changes: Abilities/Accessories expanded.
Graphic Changes: Illo reversed
Diamond Lil
Hardcover Volume: 3
Page Count: Unchanged at 1
Text Changes: Group Affiliation slightly expanded. Last sentence in History replaced with new one.
Graphic Changes: None
Diamondback
Hardcover Volume: 3
Now Listed As: Diamondback (Leighton)
Page Count: Unchanged at 2
Text Changes: Last two History paragraphs expanded.
Graphic Changes: New secondary illo.
Diamondhead
Hardcover Volume: 3
Page Count: Unchanged at 1
Text Changes: Final History paragraph split in two and second half expanded.
Graphic Changes: None
Dimension of Manifestations
Hardcover Volume: 3
Page Count: Unchanged at 1
Text Changes: None
Graphic Changes: New large captioned secondary illo added.
Doctor Doom’s Generals
Hardcover Volume: 3
Page Count: Unchanged at 1
Text Changes: None
Graphic Changes: Lancer illo replaced with new one.
Doctor Nemesis
Hardcover Volume: 3
Page Count: Unchanged at 1
Text Changes: None
Graphic Changes: 2 new secondary illos (1 captioned).
Dominic Fortune
Hardcover Volume: 3
Page Count: Unchanged at 2
Text Changes: In History, watching newsreels bit removed, final paragraph revised/expanded.
Graphic Changes: 1 secondary illo captioned, 1 removed; 2 new captioned secondary illos added.
Doomsday Man
Hardcover Volume: 3
Page Count: Increased from 1 to 2
Text Changes: History completely revised/expanded. Abilities/Accessories greatly revised/expanded.
Graphic Changes: New main illo (old one now captioned secondary illo). Old secondary illo removed; 3 new secondary illos added (2 captioned).
Doop
Hardcover Volume: 3
Page Count: Unchanged at 1
Text Changes: None
Graphic Changes: New secondary illo
Dormammu
Hardcover Volume: 3
Page Count: Unchanged at 3
Text Changes: None
Graphic Changes: New secondary illo
Drax
Hardcover Volume: 3
Page Count: Unchanged at 3
Text Changes: Final History paragraph greatly expanded
Graphic Changes: None
Ethan Edwards
Hardcover Volume: 3
Page Count: Unchanged at 3
Text Changes: Final History paragraph expanded
Graphic Changes: 2 new captioned secondary illos
1 of 1
*****HAPPY TWENTIETH ANNIVERSARY EVERYBODY!!! 2004-2024*****