DragonBall Z Abridged

[Polyphase Avatron]

That's an over-simplified way of looking at it. "Good guys always win" in most contexts is about characters overcoming adversity and surpassing their limits. One Punch man is a about a character who's already stronger than everyone he faces and has no struggles or adversity. It's a joke. And so, it ultimately comes down to how the writer of a crossover chooses to write it, which again goes back to my point of "Why the hell are we debating cartoons like science?" We've got dueling premises here and shows that operate under completely different systems.

Hey, maybe a DBZ/OPM crossover could feature Saitama one-shotting Goku, and then Goku undergoing some crazy training and beating Saitama. Or, he undergoes crazy training, leaving Saitama thrilled over having a competent opponent aaaaaaaannnnnnnnd one-shotted. Who knows.

If you write a fanfiction crossover, anything can happen. Someone could write a crossover where Goku and Superman both lose against a newborn baby. That's different from arguing what likely would happen based on evidence.

[rereboy]

And once again, this is a cop-out. You can't just call a character a 'gag character' and claim you can ignore all of the usual rules, especially when he's not even any such thing.

He is not a gag/parody character? Really...? I think you realize that he is. Ignoring that and arguing that he isn't because he isn't as "toony" as Bugs Bunny seems to be the real cop-out here, imo. Realizing that is a gag/parody character, if anything, it's the opposite of a cop-out because it doesn't ignore facts to try and force out a comparison.

Rereboy's point is it's completely pointless to compare a story that operates on some sort of logic to a series that operates on none. It's fruitless. If Saitama entered the DBZ universe, he'd lose to Raditz (but then again, we don't know. That's the entire crux of rereboy and Kaiser's argument. We don't know what Saitama's physical limits are, and the nature of the series makes it difficult to deduce unless we see it. We can only go off of the show's "logic," which is that whatever obstacle comes in front of Saitama, he's overwhelmingly stronger than. Which is why arguing over it is so crazy to me). If Raditz dropped in the OPM universe, he'd get beaten in one punch, man. Or maybe whoever was in charge of such a crossover wouldn't care jack shit about any of that and just drop in a character whose logic is completely at odds with the established universe's logic and watch hilarity ensue, which would be, y'know, the fun option. Like what Toei did with Arale.

Now can we get this back on topic?

And I say that's a silly argument. It's like saying that since Iron Man's tagline is the "invincible" Iron Man, he can beat anyone. Or since the Power Rangers theme song includes the line "no one can ever take them down" then they can beat anyone.

We don't know what Saitama's upper limits are, so that means we have to go with what he has demonstrated so far. And the best he has shown so far is inferior to Raditz. Case closed.

My argument isn't "we don't know his limits".

Like I already stated, that much could be stated regarding tons of background characters. That doesn't make them gag/parody characters.

The issue is him and other characters like him being presented as characters who are not really bound by logic and consistency in their powers and abilities. That's what makes them gag/parody characters and that's what makes the logical comparison between them and other characters not viable since we can't logically determine terms of comparison regarding something that isn't bound by logic.

You're missing the point. In the OPM universe Saitama is ridiculously powerful, but comared to another universe's characters, not so much. The narrative of how Saitama is supposed to be overpowered would be entirely irrelevant here. The quote about the "good guys always win" thing earlier explained this perfectly.

The point is about actually comparing them logically.

If one character's abilities and power don't really follow logic and consistency, a logical comparison doesn't make much sense because we wouldn't be able to determine the terms of comparison logically. So, no, I'm not missing anything.

The "good guys always win", at most, is a in-universe rule like Buffy being stronger than any human in her universe, which we can easily consider not applicable when comparing to another character that shouldn't be bound by that in-universe rule. But even if we consider the in-universe rule of Saitama always winning not applicable, there's still not enough logic and consistency in his power and abilities to make a comparison logically viable. It's not the same thing at all.

It would be like saying, "ok, so let's compare Popeye and Goku... obviously, even though Popeye never loses, that's not applicable in this scenario because that's purely story narrative... so let's analyze his feats and abilities... Er... Well, it seems that his feats and abilities are crazy and don't really follow logic, or are that consistent... How exactly are we suppose to find logic in a comparison with him when he's not really obeying logic...? Well, we can, just, force it a bit? Like, ignoring the lack of logic and just, kind of, put some numbers to the feats that we can put numbers to? I mean, we would be ignoring context and important factors, but that way we can force out some kind of comparison...? But in those conditions is it really a logical comparison between the two...?" In other words, we can force out a comparison, but it wouldn't really be an honest, logical one.

It's true that Saitama isn't as toony as Popeye, or Bugs Bunny, or even Arale, but he is still clearly presented as a character that defies logic and consistency regarding his power and abilities.

Even in Super, Vegeta admitted not being a match for Arale (because she's a gag character).

Oh, I thought you didn't have interest on Super

I don't have much interest in Super, but I'm aware of most developments in it. Regardless, I only mentioned it as an relevant example for a gag character. My interest in it isn't relevant.

[Polyphase Avatron]

It's true that Saitama isn't as toony as Popeye, or Bugs Bunny, or even Arale, but he is still clearly presented as a character that defies logic and consistency regarding his power and abilities.

Actually no, not at all.

He's strong and fast. Stronger and faster than anyone else in his own setting (so far). That's it. His feats and powers otherwise make as much sense, if not more, than DB characters (for example, ki blasts and ki manipulation in general - there are a lot of inconsistencies in how they work. Saitama doesn't have that problem, so if anything his powers and feats are more logical than DB characters).

In an early arc in One Piece, the character of Hawk-eyes Mihawk showed up and effortlessly defeated Zoro (shown to be one of the most powerful characters up to that point) who was wielding 3 swords at once with just a tiny dagger. He was completely untouchable to anyone and easily displayed just as much dominance over them as Saitama did against anyone he ever fought. Yet no one claimed he was invincible in any series or could beat characters from settings that were way above his own. Sure, it might have been the case that he could have been stronger than anyone ever and infinitely powerful, since we didn't know his limits, but no one assumed that. And, sure enough, once the manga progressed we saw that he had very clearly defined limits.

[Kaboom]

There are few things more pointless than arguing about Saitama's strength or trying to quantify it logically, especially in comparison to characters from other franchises. One Punch Man is a parody series at heart more than anything else, and that's what drives Saitama's ability to beat anybody. His strength defies all logic, even in his own universe, much less the logic of any other universe. OPM flips the shonen trope of struggling to the top through effort and determination on its head by presenting a protagonist who's already unfathomably stronger than anything else by default... from doing basic daily exercises. That's the joke. Saitama is a walking and talking "screw your power level debates" joke.

Know why Saitama defeats everyone in his own universe effortlessly? Because it's funny.
Know why Saitama would most likely beat Cell effortlessly too? Because it'd be funny.

Now after wasting an entire page on this nonsense, do we have anything resembling an actual topic to get back to?

[DanielSSJ]

Even from an In-Universe perspective, it's pointless to compare Saitama's strength to others. Sure, what we've seen so far isn't too impressive by Dragon Ball standards, but it also isn't impressive by Saitama's standards either. He's yet to use more than a fraction of his strength in a fight, so we don't really know the full scope of his strength. And based on the way the story is written, we probably never will.

So, what are the odds of the Western cartoon character that Cell will fight being Aang?

[Polyphase Avatron]

There are few things more pointless than arguing about Saitama's strength or trying to quantify it logically, especially in comparison to characters from other franchises. One Punch Man is a parody series at heart more than anything else, and that's what drives Saitama's ability to beat anybody. His strength defies all logic, even in his own universe, much less the logic of any other universe. OPM flips the shonen trope of struggling to the top through effort and determination on its head by presenting a protagonist who's already unfathomably stronger than anything else by default... from doing basic daily exercises. That's the joke. Saitama is a walking and talking "screw your power level debates" joke.

Know why Saitama defeats everyone in his own universe effortlessly? Because it's funny.
Know why Saitama would most likely beat Cell effortlessly too? Because it'd be funny.

Now after wasting an entire page on this nonsense, do we have anything resembling an actual topic to get back to?

It would be funnier if it happened the way I wrote it. Because of all of the raged fanboys.

[Polyphase Avatron]

Even from an In-Universe perspective, it's pointless to compare Saitama's strength to others. Sure, what we've seen so far isn't too impressive by Dragon Ball standards, but it also isn't impressive by Saitama's standards either. He's yet to use more than a fraction of his strength in a fight, so we don't really know the full scope of his strength. And based on the way the story is written, we probably never will.

Then we go by the best that has been shown. Which isn't anywhere near enough.

[KaiserNeko]

Unless you read the webcomic.

[coola]

Dang it, i just saw post on Facebook, thought it is new episode, turns out, it was message, that Episode 534 is gone from Youtube, and to use TFS site instead

[rereboy]

It's true that Saitama isn't as toony as Popeye, or Bugs Bunny, or even Arale, but he is still clearly presented as a character that defies logic and consistency regarding his power and abilities.

Actually no, not at all.

He's strong and fast. Stronger and faster than anyone else in his own setting (so far). That's it. His feats and powers otherwise make as much sense, if not more, than DB characters (for example, ki blasts and ki manipulation in general - there are a lot of inconsistencies in how they work. Saitama doesn't have that problem, so if anything his powers and feats are more logical than DB characters).

In an early arc in One Piece, the character of Hawk-eyes Mihawk showed up and effortlessly defeated Zoro (shown to be one of the most powerful characters up to that point) who was wielding 3 swords at once with just a tiny dagger. He was completely untouchable to anyone and easily displayed just as much dominance over them as Saitama did against anyone he ever fought. Yet no one claimed he was invincible in any series or could beat characters from settings that were way above his own. Sure, it might have been the case that he could have been stronger than anyone ever and infinitely powerful, since we didn't know his limits, but no one assumed that. And, sure enough, once the manga progressed we saw that he had very clearly defined limits.

You are still not seeing the difference between a character that simply hasn't had his limits shown and one that is presented in a way that shows that he isn't really bound to logic and consistency. I won't repeat what I've already said. Perhaps Kaboom's response will be more effective in getting my point across if you read it. Anyway, it's enough of this discussion for me.

[TekTheNinja]

Unless you read the webcomic.

Dunno bout that. His feats haven't really improved all that much imo.

Anyway I don't understand the argument that Saitama's a gag character that lacks consistency. He has total consistency. The joke is just that he's overpowed. He's not like Arale or golden age Superman who can just make up powers and feats out of nowhere.

[rereboy]

Unless you read the webcomic.

Dunno bout that. His feats haven't really improved all that much imo.

Anyway I don't understand the argument that Saitama's a gag character that lacks consistency. He has total consistency. The joke is just that he's overpowed. He's not like Arale or golden age Superman who can just make up powers and feats out of nowhere.

In the case of Saitama, I agree that it's more about not being bound to logic than actual consistency. I mentioned logic and consistency because that's how it usually goes with gag characters but I agree that regarding Saitama it's less about consistency and more about logic.

[TekTheNinja]

Unless you read the webcomic.

Dunno bout that. His feats haven't really improved all that much imo.

Anyway I don't understand the argument that Saitama's a gag character that lacks consistency. He has total consistency. The joke is just that he's overpowed. He's not like Arale or golden age Superman who can just make up powers and feats out of nowhere.

In the case of Saitama, I agree that it's more about not being bound to logic than actual consistency. I mentioned logic and consistency because that's how it usually goes with gag characters but I agree that regarding Saitama it's less about consistency and more about logic.

Define logic in this scenario. In the universe of OPM lots of zany shit IS logical. Same with the DB universe.

[rereboy]

Define logic in this scenario. In the universe of OPM lots of zany shit IS logical. Same with the DB universe.

Kaboom already described it best in his post.

[Noah]

I wonder if in the next episode we'll see a brief of Goku vs. Cell please use Cell theme from Ultimate Battle 22 in this match!

[jcogginsa]

In a debate, Saitama would lose.

In a crossover, he'd win.

Stories are not vs. Debates. In a vs. debate, if a character hasn't been shown doing something, then they can't do it. In a crossover, the person can do whatever the writer wants.

[TekTheNinja]

Define logic in this scenario. In the universe of OPM lots of zany shit IS logical. Same with the DB universe.

Kaboom already described it best in his post.

How he gained his strength, yes. That's considered illogical even in-universe. But that has nothing to do with his actual level of strength. The ONLY problem with debates about Saitama vs anyone is that we've yet to see the actual limits of his strength since both Boros and Garou were weak compared to Saitama and also weak compared to probably even Saiyan arc DB characters.

[DanielSSJ]

How he gained his strength, yes. That's considered illogical even in-universe. But that has nothing to do with his actual level of strength. The ONLY problem with debates about Saitama vs anyone is that we've yet to see the actual limits of his strength since both Boros and Garou were weak compared to Saitama and also weak compared to probably even Saiyan arc DB characters.

Hence any strength comparisons between Saitama and other characters are worthless. You're dealing with an unknown quantity here, so how can you make a proper comparison if you have incomplete information?

[Polyphase Avatron]

Unless you read the webcomic.

I have. Still nothing more impressive than the moon jump.

You are still not seeing the difference between a character that simply hasn't had his limits shown and one that is presented in a way that shows that he isn't really bound to logic and consistency. I won't repeat what I've already said. Perhaps Kaboom's response will be more effective in getting my point across if you read it. Anyway, it's enough of this discussion for me.

Because you are just making that up as a cop-out excuse. It doesn't matter if the point of his character is to always be stronger than his opponents, that doesn't apply to cross-setting debates. We only can go by what is actually demonstrated.

Anyway I don't understand the argument that Saitama's a gag character that lacks consistency. He has total consistency. The joke is just that he's overpowed. He's not like Arale or golden age Superman who can just make up powers and feats out of nowhere.

Golden Age Superman wasn't really that strong, it's Silver Age that has the craziest feats, but even he had some kind of consistency and clear limits to his powers.

In the case of Saitama, I agree that it's more about not being bound to logic than actual consistency. I mentioned logic and consistency because that's how it usually goes with gag characters but I agree that regarding Saitama it's less about consistency and more about logic.

Goku breaks "logic" way more than Saitama ever has. In part 1 Dragonball he broke the border of a manga panel... I guess according to you that makes him an invincible gag character that can beat anyone. He managed to go faster than Hit's timeskip by using Kaio-ken, which makes no sense, so according to you that should make him an invincible gag character that can beat anyone.

Nope, not how things work. I suggest you watch this video, it should explain things better than I have:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GcYfJd7CtVc

In a debate, Saitama would lose.

In a crossover, he'd win.

Stories are not vs. Debates. In a vs. debate, if a character hasn't been shown doing something, then they can't do it. In a crossover, the person can do whatever the writer wants.

Actually, in a crossover, anyone could win, depending on what the writer wants to do. That's why arguing who would win in a crossover is pointless. You could write anyone beating anyone else in a crossover. For example:

"One day Zeno-sama, future Zeno-sama, a trillion other Zeno-samas, Saitama, Silver Age Superman, The One Above All, and Chuck Norris all decided to team up against a newborn kitten. The kitten kicked all of their asses in 1 second. The end."

So acting like that means something is silly.

Hence any strength comparisons between Saitama and other characters are worthless. You're dealing with an unknown quantity here, so how can you make a proper comparison if you have incomplete information?

If you're driving down the road, and you don't see a speed limit sign, do you automatically assume there's no speed limit and then step on the gas pedal as hard as you can?

Refer to my Mihawk example. For a long time he had no known limits, but no one suggested he could take on characters and powers way above the context of his setting.

[Polyphase Avatron]

Also, watch this video that completely debunks the whole 'gag character' argument:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aT_FgXT7RCU