Chiki wrote:Of course, I'm perfectly aware of that.
Having established that Beerus behaves capriciously, I wouldn't really feel pressed to over-rationalize his actions here: he may have jumped from 0.1% to 10% insted of a possibly more logical 1% "just because".
"Capricious" means sudden changes in behavior. I don't see what going to 10% instead of 1% has anything to do with being capricious. Do capricious people buy 15 cent candies for 10 dollars? No they don't. Because that's just common sense. You don't buy 15 cent candies for 10 dollars because it's dumb. Similarly, Beerus's capriciousness has nothing to do with going 10% or 1% because that has to do with common sense, not moodiness.
This isn't over-rationalization. It's called "not being completely dumb."
I'll try with an example, then: let's say you are in race.
You are in your car, and you drive leisurely: the other contestant, however, can barely keep up with you. He then struggles, he gets slightly ahead of you.
Then you suddenly decide to humiliate him: you get serious, and you complete ten laps before he can manage to finish a single lap.
Over-rationalizing, or rather, overanalyzing means you think there'd be some deep-seated reason for himself to do ten laps instead of one. Of course, the guy spends more fuel, more energy and so on.
Matter of fact is, however, that there's not: the guy is whimsical, he just "felt like it" and he wanted to troll the other contestant at that moment.
You are, in other words, applying a standard model with the idea that the character would necessarily choose the "most rational and efficient" approach. More or less, a matter-of-fact mindset not unlike those you'd find while talking about economic models. Quite a good deal of one person's actions (or in this case, a character), however, doesn't necessarily go in the same direction of economics or formulaic models.
What I'm trying to say is that there's no established rule here that the character in question may
necessarily implement the most "efficient". It's not like it's even "the most efficient", because, really... what does it change if Beerus one-shots Vegeta at 1% or 10%? Pretty much nothing. And it's not like he feels the need to always act in a power-conservation mode anyway.
In the end, is there the possibility that Beerus went up to being *100 stronger than Vegeta in a few seconds? Yes, there is.
What's the reason? The reason is that Beerus felt like it.
Is it stupid? Not really, at most it's inefficient. Beerus, however, probably felt more satisfied that way, in that very moment, than by hitting Vegeta at 1% or 1.5% of his power.
Yeah I think it's a bit silly to assume Beerus was overcompensating that much against Rageta, I mean would the target audience even draw a conclusion as convoluted as that one after watching the episode?
Also given how impressed Beerus seemed with SSG Goku, it seems really odd that he would only be using a measly 10% of his full power against him.
What we know for sure here is that Beerus didn't use his true power against Goku, and Super went out of the BOG script to avoid giving us even a percentage this time, so he already used some percentage of his power lower than his 100%.
I'd personally say that Whis talks and acts like "SSB + Kaioken * 2" shouldn't faze Beerus anyway ("Oh, my... do you think you'll be in trouble if he uses that against you?"). Whis
should know Beerus' true power, so the question should in turn only be rhetorical, as in "oh, please, don't be silly". Champa still acting like he can beat Hit and Goku apparently reinforces this.
Now, if you agree with this and the fact that Kaioken multiplied his total BP, his Super Saiyan Blue should therefore be less than 50%. This puts Super Saiyan God Goku between some small percentage and slightly less than 50%. He could already be in a 5-40% range, in theory.
In any way, those are just a bunch of ideas. I understand that if you start from one or two different premises, given how blurry the state of affairs currently is you may end up with radically different conclusions.
