Actually, Vash's arm changed against his will. He was only sitting there because he was trying to stop it. He even told the guy to run the hell away. He's also taken more serious wounds than that and survived easily... and kept moving as well.

In the fight with Knives, later on, we see that he can change his arm into a gun extremely quickly... when he's not resisting it. And, moreover, can do so while moving.

Exactly, Sephiroth would force him into a position in which that would happen.........the arm would change against his will, though Sephiroth might just stab him repeatedly in the face when it starts changing.

How about this one, in a battle royal on who can destroy the most areas faster we have for team marvel Thanos (Destroyed a race) Exodus ( I think it was an island or somethin) And Galaticus (Eater of planets) Versus team japan Unicorn (Yay Transformers planet eater!) Sephiroth (We all know what he can do) Vash (Mr oops I am sorry didn't mean to that...) Versus team massive destructive space ship the death star. Who wins? Besides the people who have to pay $8.00 to watch on pay per view and the people making the money off the event?

Having little info on Marvel's side (and who is Unicorn, I've heard of Unicron, but not Unicorn), I think I'll post my own versus
generic D&D 20th level Wizard w/ 20th level Palidan (sp?) versus Jedi Consular w/ Jedi Guardian

Spirit - Death Star pwnz jo0.

Paladin loses to Jedi Guardian, but Wizard has a pretty good chance of ganking the COnsular... Unless the Consular decides to Grip/Force Lightning the Wizard, then the latter is screwed.

But overall I favor the Jedi. Their prescience and speed is a massive advantage.

Between Galactus and Unicron, the Death Star'd get sucked dry pretty quick.

I mean, what chance would it have? It's designed to attack planets moving in fixed orbits, not giant robots/space gods which are more than capable of dodging.

The only chance for the Death Star is if Unicron and Galactus fight over who gets to eat it, one kills the other, and the Death Star manages to shoot whichever one wins before the winner's attention returns to the Death star. And that the Death Star is able to kill the winner in one hit (Slightly possible in the case of Unicron, pretty doubtful where Galactus is concerned).

Not to mention the Deathstar despite its name is quite a lot smaller than Unicron and I assume Galactus. The Deathstar is small moon sized while Unicron is a little less than earth sized. So yeah the death star is pretty much the loser in the planet destroyers category. Not to mention one little fighter and two missles turned it into space dust.

The deathstar can also turn an entire planet into space dust with a single blast. I don't think you understand/are thinking about how much raw energy it takes to not only break up or melt a planet, but put enough kinetic energy into it's molecules that they all fly away from each other, as opposed to just turning it into a molten ball, cracking it into chunks that move back together, or blasting it out of orbit. The energy of it's main gun is far more powerful than anything Galactus or Unicron has access to.

You're also forgetting that a fighter and two missiles only beat it because it was designed with one specific weakness in it's exhaust port that anything larger than a fighter could never possibly exploit... because only a fighter could get under it's shields to fire into there.

AND the turbolaser, once fired, moves at the speed of light, and it has many many other weapons that could turn a planet into a molten ball in a little bit of time.

Plus... it's commanded by the emperor and Darth Vader... who are both extremely powerful force users, and thus would be able to see Galactus and Unicron coming and have the deathstar shoot where they would be, instead of where they are. Force precognitive abilities and all that....

So they team up and as one gets shot at the other smashes the thing into a blackhole or destroys it with a nice punch. Starwars shields are mainly energy repulsive. A good physical knock will still transmit quite a bit of eneregy through.

yeah, but would the big robots really be expecting a small planet to be able to blow one of them up? (especially considering how long both of them have been eating planets much bigger than the death star)

Let's assume this is a completed version of the 2nd death star, the one where they got rid of the exhaust-port weakness, and assume it's being commanded by Darth Vader and the Emperor.

Death Star can't win. The Death Star would be able to kill either Galactus or Unicron, but the one not killed would then eat the Death Star. The planet destroying beam can't recharge fast enough to shoot them both, and the other weapons wouldn't be able to stop either of them in time to be eaten. And since the Death Star is just moon size, it can easily be eaten.

Doesn't Galactus not actually eat planets, just suck them dry?

the second death star could recharge within minutes.......and unlike the two big robots, it can travel through hyperspace.

It could take down one robot easily with the planet destroying ray, then start blasting the hell out of the other with it's multitude of turbolaser arrays, and it's huge tie fighter squadrons could be shooting it in the eye. It'd only have to distract the second long enough to be able to charge for a second shot.

I have some difficulty with the fact that we're using a version of the Death Star that never actually existed... but it's whatever.

Yeah, but it'd take less than that for either Unicron to wrap his claws around it, or for Galactus to sink his planet-leechers into it, and then it's going to be rendered pretty immobile.

You can't tell me that the Death Star has more combined firepower than all of Cybertron, and Unicron pretty much shrugged that all off.

And Galactus' mere heralds, possessing but a tiny fraction of his power cosmic, were capable of wiping out an entire planet's defenses single-handedly.

...

Seriously, I don't even think the main Death Star weapon'd do much to Galactus. I mean, the guy survived the end of the universe (specifically, the universe that existed before the Marvel universe, whose collapse allowed the Marvel universe to come into being). The only thing he ever feared was the Ultimate Nullifier, and that thing was capable of wiping out all creation.

Galactus could travel at warp speed.

I'm pretty sure Unicron would've had to, I mean, anything capable of inter-world travel would have to be able to do this.

And Galactus wasn't a robot.

Sure I can. We've already discussed, and come to the consensus that a Gundam has more firepower than the most heavily armed transformer, and not just a little more. One turbolaser would be far more powerful than anything a gundam has, being 'DBZ character getting thrown at a building' or so in power. The deathstar has an innumerable number of them. There'd have to be about ten optimus primes for every one turbolaser on the death star to even come close to the fire power that thing can crank out... and that's not counting it's missile and fighter bays. Unicron is completely outmatched.

Galactus has a chance, though. I don't know that much about marvel... if he survived the destruction of the universe, he can most likely survive the main gun of the death star.

No contest. Jedi Guardians can use the force, so he lifts the Paladin off the ground, throws his lightsaber. Or he uses force speed, and, well, you can guess the rest. That's over.

Jedi Consular dosen't have to speak, or any of that other mumbo jumbo, so his "spells" happen instantaneously(sp?). That means, as Dante said, all he has to do is choke the wizard so that he can't speak. Plus, the Consular is still fairly good at fighting.

Jedi wins all around.

Except for the fact that the Transformers had large ships when they fought Unicron. Ships that were much more powerful than 10 Optimus Primes and the had a whole damn lot of them. Unicron completely ignored them despite this because it wasn't even enough power to discolor his armor. I highly doubt that any turbo laser is going to do jack to him. I'm not completely convinced that the planet destroying laser whould even destroy him. A planet is made basically of losely bound particles held together by gravity. That is a lot easier to destroy than a giant robot made of tightly bonded particles and metal resistant to energy weapons; not to mention he is held together by his gravity. Unicron has a lot more going for him then you think.

Krylo does have a very good point, though, do you have ANY idea how much energy it takes to blow up an entire planet? The second death star, even though it wasn't fully completed (we're assuming this is a completed version of the second death star) was able to blast through the shields on some of the Rebels' biggest and most heavily shielded vessels........and the bolt continued after destroying them (it's easy to miss, but it does happen).

new fight!
Samus Aran vs. Darth Vader

I'm sure Vader would win. In most situations, the Force beats all. Plus, I'm fairly confident a lightsaber could deflect most, if not all, of Samus's beam weapons.

Who needs a lightsaber when he can just use the force to choke her. Not like the force is stopped by metal... he choked one guy over the phone (well... the SW equivalent of a phone).

Exactly my point. I was just pointing out that even without killing her the easy way, Vader could still hold his own with just the saber.

Alright most downright wrong battle of all time. Adolf Hitler versus Napoleon Bonaparte in a cage match!

Hitler. Hitler's weapons are superior, he wasn't a midget, and he wasn't fat.

Vader doesn't even need the lightsaber to reflect her bolts, he can just use the force, remember?

Napoleon had actual military experience, and I'm NOT gonna declare Hitler the winner of anything unless the prize is a bullet in the head!

Napoleon wins.

Napoleon was normal height and was not overweight.

And Hitler had far superior weaponry and yet was still incapable of conquering Russia.

Besides, Hitler was just a big pussy propagandist. Napoleon had honest to God steel.

And when you get right down to it... who the fuck wants Hitler winning, anyway? The fuck I'm declaring him the winner.

...

Here's a historically minded one for you all:

Alexander the Great vs. Ghengis Khan

Barbarians eventually overthrew Rome, and Rome overthrew Greece, therefore Ghengis Khan wins. Plus, Khan is cooler.

Rome overthrew greece far after Alexander the Great was gone, and during the height of their power. Barbarians didn't manage to touch rome until it had split in two, the people had lost faith in the government, and Nero had burned down the city, Caligula had made a horse pro-consulate, etc. etc.

And, Alexander the Great nearly conquered the entire world, and fought with his soldiers. He'd rape Genghis Khan.

Oh, and Napoleon wasn't of average height. He was short... maybe not midget short, but short.

And Hitler only didn't take Russia because he attacked during the winter, not to mention his men were outnumbered by quite a bit. He beat the hell out of England, France, Poland, and everything else except the US. He came closer to taking over the world than Napoleon ever did... and he invented the blitzkrieg and other devastating millitary techniques. He was a tactical genius, if not a strategic one.

Oh, and Napoleon is just BARELY morally superior. He may not have slaughtered a race of people, but he wasn't exactly a nice person either... and Hitler had military experience as well. The kind where he was out fighting in the trenches, which would help him far more in a one on one fight than Napoleon's military experience as a general.

Ah, but can Vader choke her when she is pure Chozo energy in a ball? Poweromb it, "Dodge this."

Yes, yes he can. If he can choke someone through the vastness of space, he can choke her when she's in a ball/screw attacking.

You're seriously going to have to elaborate on "wasn't exactly a nice person" if you expect me to believe he was "barely" morally superior.



Mr. "Well, generals, while your limited focus has led you to believe the road to success lies in bombing military installations and airfields, clearly the most efficacious and successful road to victory over Britain would be to bomb its civilian centers. Surely killing innocent women and children and destroying their museums and culture shall teach them to fear and respect the might of Germany" was hardly what I'd call a tactical genius.

Most of Hitler's good tactics -- including the Blitzkrieg -- were cooked up by his generals.

Dude was 5'6''. And 5'6'' back then wasn't bad (hell, it was above average).

Ah, he was a messenger. Good at dodging mortars, maybe, but in a fight? Not quite applicable.

...

Ah, but can Vader choke her when she is pure Chozo energy in a ball?

An interesting question -- she is channeling mystical forces similar to those of the Force, after all.

You completely missed the fact that Napoleon wasn't above a little fighting either. I direct you here http://www.napoleonguide.com/leaders_napoleon.htm . The outcome of this battle is more determined by the age of the two fighters. If there both young then its a toss up. In their older forms Napoleon wins because Hilter was suffering from like 3 different debilitating diseases.

Sidenote: What the hell does the weaponary either of them had have anything to do with this. If their in a cage fighting chances are they don't have any weapons at all or could easly disarm each other. Besides don't you think if Napoleon lived during Hilter's time he whouldn't have had the same weapons. Converserly do you think if Hitler had been in Napoleon's time he whould have somehow had his better weapons. I'll admit Hitler invented some pretty good tactics but Napoleon wasn't bad himself. Also, that kind of strategy has nothing to do with one on one fighting.

edit: Damn you TV you made me put the wrong tag and its a episode I've already seen.

Well, there was the time he fired cannons at a civilian mob from his own country, then there was the whole waging war with his own country thing, then there was how he destroyed quite a few egyptian tombs and artifacts when he attacked them--by the way, attacking egypt at all was pretty amoral considering they weren't even his objective, not that his objective was moral... being world conquest--beyond that there was the executing of his political rivals--when they weren't even able to compete with him any more--without trials... a little like Hitler's night of the long knives only with less reason to it, and that's just what I could find in his biography.

Oh, and Napoleon didn't exactly succeed in Russia either... the Russians beat his forces down to 20,000 and forced him to withdraw from the country, so calling Hitler's loss there against him is rather pointless.

Same with Napoleon.............General Winter and Colonel Scorched Earth Policy wins most of Russia's wars;). Napoleon was able to conquer almost as much as Hitler did, and he would be much more dangerous in an actual fight.

Hitler was nowhere near as willing to risk his own life, which is why he wasn't served out of loyalty (like Napoleon was) but out of fear of his soldiers. Napoleon is also less mentally deranged, he'll still win in a cage match.

Ok, new fight,

Achilles versus Arthur.

You can choose whether its the immortal versions of either or whatnot.

Didn't I already do Achilles vs. Arthur?

Anyway, if we are going by legend/myth versions, then Arthur wins since the Excaliber makes the wielder of it always win. But, if Achilles could disarm Arthur before it's winning affect came into affect, he wins since he is a better fighter, stronger, faster, and invincible in all places but the heel than Arthur is.

Vader wouldn't have to choke her while she's in a ball. Just create a force sheild around himself to protect him from the blast of the powerbomb, and slice her in half with the lightsaber. Or he absorbs the energy from the blast and uses lightning, or a dozen other powers to kill her.

EDIT: Also, Arthur is invincible with Excalibur's sheaf at his side. That isn't much of an advantage, as it could be easily knocked of his belt, but it does exist.

Since when can Vader use Lightning?

Or for that matter, even a Force shield? I don't remember him doing any of that.

Sky City, Vader reflected a blaster bolt with his hand (Shield).

All Vader has to do is choke Samus while keeping her right arm away from pointing at him.

IHMN is correct, that is what I meant earlier when I talked about him deflecting blaster bolts.

Vader could just deflect one of Samus's own shots back at her........and then choke her to death with the force.

All Jedi have these abilities, they just might not choose to use them/have need to use them. There are limitless possibilities when it comes to the force.

Samus vs Vader - Vader. Vader can precog eveything Samus throws at him, can simply Grip/Saber her. Then there's the matter of his Force Block, which is basically a lightsaber attack deflection using his gauntlet as a focus (Plo Koon uses that too, IIRC). Samus may have a firepower advantage, but the only way she's even going to have a decent chance against Vader is if she gets her ship and starts shooting, and even then Vader has ways to win.

And as for whoever said the Death Star would lose to Galactus and Unicron... Let's see... apart from the superlaser, the Death star only has hundreds of thousands of heavy turbolasers, which are a hell of a lot more powerful than than the Acclamator's (from EP2) guns, which are in turn rated at 200 GTs of firepower per shot. Death Star heavy turbolasers also have a fire rate of 1/second, so whichever side is being attacked can bring minimum 50'000 heavy TLS to bear on Galactus/Unicron. Death Star 2 also took only 1 minute between planet-killing shots.

And krylo, TLs do NOT move at the speed of light. They are NOT lasers, but something else (don't ask me what).

All this information is derived from stardestroyer.net, one of the eminent sites of Star Wars research on the Net. Question it if you want - just sign up at the forums and rant.

TL's(and every other "laser weapon" in SW) has to use bursts of some quasi energy/matter mix...thingy. Because they have the ability to push things back (like matter) but aren't solid (like energy). I have never visited stardestroyer.net(I will be soon), is straight from my very modest brain.

The term turbolaser is something of a misnomer... Turbblaster would be slightly more accurate.

But that's what we have this place for.

Not quite. The turbolasers have vastly different properties from the blasters, the most obvious of which being that they don't use the super charged gas that a blaster uses, but rather siphon direct energy from the star destroyer, or, in this case, the death star.

Quoted from Star Wars Turbolaser Commentaries:

Well, the Fuzzy Vong are considered Canon, until they conflict with the movies themselves. The Fuzzy Vong used plasma weapons, and the people had never seen plasma weapons, which is why they were dangerous... thus the plasma source is contradicted by canon.

Even George Lucas has said that the novels are canon unless they conflict with something that has been shown on tv or in movies.

Further, the Roleplaying Games, which must be ok'd by LucasArts state: A beam of intense energy and light. Further:
And the source for that is "A New Hope" and the Star Wars Source Book.

And, from the same sources:

However, since we can see a BOLT travelling in all the movies, it CANNOT be a laser. Movies override the books, and I doubt the SWSB and their like are canon.

I'll post up the canon policy when I find it.

EDIT: Found it.

http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/index.html

Yes, but you can also hear explosions in space, thus by that measure there must be air and particles in space in the star wars universe. Not to mention that SW isn't the first Sci-fi franchise to make laser's visible to the naked eye and not move fast enough...

Edit: And the turbolasers don't appear as bolts, either. Only blasters do, the turbolasers appear as a stream of energy, much more like what a laser would look like... if we could see them from the sides, which we can't.

Irrelevant.

Well, their exact nature remains undetermined, and assuming that SW turbolasers are lasers is a post hoc fallacy (As in, SW energy weapons are lasers because they look like lasers)

EDIT: Check out SWTC, I'm sorry to keep pushing you somewhere else, but that site really does all the debating for me.

No it isn't. I was drawing a parallel. You said that you can see blaster bolts so they can't be lasers, because, as we all know, you can't see a laser... I said you can also hear things where you shouldn't hear them... there are fiery explosions where there shouldn't be fiery explosions. The special effects obviously don't obey the laws of physics, thus, simply because we can see a bolt when we shouldn't be able to see a laser isn't a good arguement against them being lasers.

And assuming they aren't when things of equal canon say that they both are and are not is also fallacy.
Besides... the movies call them lasers... after all, they're called 'turbolasers' and the cannons on other spaceships are called 'lasers'.
It'd help if you'd link. I can figure out what SW means there... but not the rest.

So how is this relevant to whether or not they are blasters or lasers?

It is not. It would be a fallacy if I said (canon source) is contradicted by (not-so canon source). However, since both of them are of equal canon, we must look to the films, and the films prove visually that it CANNOT be lasers.

Sorry about that. Here ya go.

http://www.stardestroyer.net/tlc/index.html

It's not, but it invalidates:
The films can't prove or disprove any kind of physics visually if they're going to have giant fiery explosions that give off soundwaves in deep space.

The only thing we CAN take from the films is that they are called 'lasers'.

So... basically... turbolasers are some magical form of energy which doesn't exist in the real world, that people just decide to call lasers? That seems to be the basis of that page: They can't be lasers because of y, they can't be plasma because of x, they can't be blah blah blah, because of yada yada yada.

They also try to relate it to lightsabre technology... but aren't you the one who goes around saying lightsabre's are a physical manifestation of the force... which is pretty easy to argue against (non-force users have picked them up and used them to cut holes in things and what have you in the novels), but still... if you believe lightsabres are a physical manifestation of the force, then that invalidates at least one large section of their arguement.

Besides that, everything they say is derived from the visual effects, which I've already proven as having a VERY good possibility of meaning nothing at all. There are thousands of sci-fi flicks with 'lasers' that have similiar visual characteristics as the SW weapons... and they were mostly created around the same time as SW. Special effects do not a physical proof make.

I ask you to suspend your disbelief for this... otherwise we can also write off shields, hyperdrives, hyperwave comms, etc because we cannot duplicate them in the real world. Who's to say that the soudns we hear aren't a form of aural aid to help the pilot gauge how close the flak explosions from turbolaser blasts are?

http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/...eam/Beam2.html

Pretty much.

I have never commented on lightsabers, nor do I intend to, krylo. Please get your facts straight before pinning them to me.

But they are all we have to go. GL certainly was not an astrophysicist. You can't expect him to respect the laws of physics in a creative project.

Dude... Unicron faced down a planet full of sentient robots with built-in laser weaponry, which themselves had their own fleet of armed-to-the-teeth battleships. Which didn't so much as chip his paint (the only damage they did to him was breaking the plate for his eye, and that took an entire battleship rammed through it). And while it might take Unicron more than a minute to eat all of the Death Star, I'd imagine once he'd taken a good solid bite or two out of it, that'd manage to sufficiently disrupt it's operation. Hell, Unicron's personal gravity alone would probably be enough to cause the Death Star to tear itself apart.

And Galactus? Galactus survived the end of the universe along with the creation of the next one. The Death Star's big gun may be impressive, but it still isn't the Big Bang.

Well, when you're arguing based on a movie, what else do you purport to go by? I should think it would at least be more reliable than the books -- it's the original source material for the books, and when you're arguing based on fiction, the movie's as close as you're going to get to physical proof.

We can't duplicate them, but we can at least try to explain them. Hyperdrive might be wormholes, or maybe einstein's theories were eventually disproven and it is possible to travel faster than light... the shields could merely be magnetic fields around the ships, or some kind of gravitational field capable of bending light... if they can make gravity wells to stop hyperspace they should be able to do that, etc. etc. That explanation is just slightly less probable than: Which is what I've been saying all along. He's not respecting the laws of physics in any of his other effects, whose to say he didn't mean for them to be lasers but then simply made the special effects poor for an actual laser.

I like my explanation more...

Then I'm confusing you with someone else, and I apologize. Could have sworn it was you way back in the day who mentioned that, though. Maybe it was lyc... bah, I'm too lazy to look it up.

But if Lucas didn't respect the laws of physics while directing those physical effects, and there are other parts of the movies that make little sense in respect to the laws of physics...

You know, the easiest explanation may be to just say that the laws of physics are different in the SW universe...

Edit: Fifth, I've already said, you can only take knowledge of technology from a movie when they explain it within the movie. They called them lasers all throughout all of the movies. Special effects rarely, if ever, obey the laws of physics.

That's what you can support it with.

And I've said that sounds pretty ass-backwards. If I jump up and down a bunch of times, and say that this shows I can fly, that doesn't prove much of anything. I have no intention of judging movies by a different standard. As the old line goes "Who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes?" And nuts to that.

Damnit, I'm sick, but there was a disturbance in the Force that called me here...

Any technology that is sufficently beyond the level of explainable knowledge qualifies as Magic. Thus, Star Wars blasters are powered by Magic, and shoot concentrated beams of Magic...

krylo, they are the Yuuzhan Vong, and they shoot Plasma as in the material that Stars are made of. Thus you are correct in that blasters cannot be plasma based.

The Death Star could beat Unicron (Unicron is the size of a planet, Death Star blows up planets. Case closed), but not Galactus (If he can shrug off the end of the old universe and the beginning of a new one, he could laugh at the Death Star's Superlaser...).

Darth Vader would beat Samus. If she stays in normal form, he Force Chokes her. If she goes into a ball, he picks her up and hurls her into orbit with the Force. Energy blasts he would reflect with his lightsaber, and missles he could throw off course with the force.

Now try and hold off on the Star Wars battles until I feel better and can argue them at 100% efficency...

(Unicron is the size of a planet, Death Star blows up planets. Case closed)

Unicron is a planet that transforms into a robot. Different rules apply.

[edit] I will grant that the big gun could likely take a decent sized chunk out of Unicron, but I would argue that Unicron could more than likely be expected to shrug off the turbolasers, after which it's just a matter of keeping out of the way of the big gun -- or hell, just jamming his fist into the Death Star and ripping the thing right off.

The beam may move at the speed of light, but they still have to aim the thing (let alone whatever charging interval exists), and I doubt Unicron's going to just sit there and let them point that thing in his face. [/edit]

I mean, Galactus wasn't even as big as a planet -- that doesn't stop him from surviving the end of the universe.

Size ain't everything, as they say.

Not really. Superlaser travels at near the speed of light. It is capable of not just drilling through a planet, but incinerating it and reducing it to rubble, then hurling the rubble away from the point of origin. It takes an incredible amount of power to do that, so I assume that at best it annhialates Unicron, and at worst blows a hunk out of him so huge, he won't recover in time for the Death Star to get even a 50% charge and fire again, finishing him off.

Here's a fight for you.

Jesus vs. Mothra

No holds barred, outskirts of Tokyo.

I propose right now that we institute a voluntary ban on matches involving Jesus, Yahweh, Allah, Brahman, or any other entity with significant religous status and a standing claim to unqualified omnipotence.

I mean fuck, if the Raistlin arguments got out of control...

I'll second that voluntary ban.

Bah, Bruce Campbell kills them all with his BOOM-STICK!

Anyway.

Sandman Death vs Discworld Death in a popularity contest.

Why is Jesus vs. Mothra bringing a ban? Does some one think Jesus can actually beat Mothra? Gaint monster moth who is up there with Godzilla, while Jesus is just some mortal guy who can't fight.

And for Dante's, since I never heard of either of them, they both lose.

Pah. Jesus would whup Mothra. He can turn water to wine, blood is mostly water... he turns all the blood in Mothra's body to wine and Mothra dies of immediate and fatal alcohol poisoning before Mothra even notices him.

Also, Jesus is God. God always wins. That's why we bring about the ban... what's the point of having an omnipotent character fight anything? They're omnipotent.

And... I've never read discworld... but the Sandman Death is cool... and hot.

Jesus isn't God. Jesus is the son of god, but lacks the godly powers. All he did was some miracles. And he died to Romans.

Edit - And Jesus wouldn't fight anyway, so does it really matter?

Depends. Catholics think God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit are all the same being. Protestants think that they are all different. One of the many reasons the two groups split up. Jesus may not want to fight... But God would kick Mothra's ass with a vengence, so I'll go with the Catholic interpretation here.

Among other things Protestants don't believe in confessionals and crap.

Even if Jesus is God, it's God is Jesus mode. Jesus never did anything extremely godly besides heal some people and walk on water. And he wouldn't kick anythings ass. And he can die.

It's not God vs. Mothra (God vs. Anything is stupid), it's Jesus vs. Mothra.

Then it's an eternal draw. Every time Jesus dies, he just comes back to life. And when Mothra does kill Jesus, after three days he ascends to the right hand of the Father, making him second most powerful in existance. He smites Mothra's ass with holy might at that point to prove that heathan beings have no power over the followers of Christianity.

Well, Jesus can always whistle up an infintie number of angels to constantly whomp Mothra's ass down while he goes off for a daiquiri.

I still say water to wine + blood = death.

That too. And Jesus can probably summon up all the ten Biblical plagues at will, and since Mothra is the only one of his kind, he technically becomes a firstborn son and dies to the effect of the last plague.

Mothra has kids.

If we are using one of Mothra's kids, then it eventually becomes a god itself.

Edit - The plauges are one a day, Jesus would be dead by then.

When Jesus dies, if he becomes God's right hand, then Jesus is gone so Mothra wins.

Does Mothra even have blood? Even so, he turned his blood into wine, not other people's blood.

Angels are not Jesus, so they can't be in this fight (And Jesus never summoned angels).

No one established leaving the battlefield as criteria for losing, so Jesus' ascension is perfectly legitamate and within battle parameters. After Jesus is 'Killed' he comes back and smites Mothra, and his kids without any trouble.

Discworld Death. Sandman's was perky enough, but the Death of Discworld had style.

If you've never read Pratchett or Gaiman, then the only loser is you.

Of, I thought it said becomes, not ascends. Even so, Jesus doesn't suddenly become all powerful because he is on God's right hand. He is just on God's right hand.

But it has no siblings, so it is stil lthe firstborn of its generation and thus it dies.

Proof, please.

Doesn't matter, Jesus can call up any plague he wants.

Mothra has not eliminated Jesus and Jesus was already the son of God. Becoming God's right hand merely makes it official.

Hardly a stretch to say that if you can transmute the blood of the avatar of the omnipotent Creator into wine he can't do it to Mothra.

He has the power to. He could have summoned an entire legion of them while he was on the cross or while he was in the desert. In this case he chooses to exercise it becuase he's not concerned with saving the world but kicking Mothra's ass!

Well he isn't literally on God's hand, but he becomes like God's Right Hand Man. And he ascends, as in after his death he comes back, visits his apostles, and litterally floats up to Heaven. This places him above the highest ranks of the Holy Choir (I don't remember all the ranks, it's more a Catholic thing then Protestant) thus giving him more power then the Angels, so I would think the ability to Smite would fit in there somewhere.