Thread:Nausiated/@comment-4651179-20150223173949/@comment-61022-20150225221636

They didn't reduce the Terminatrix Objective story to apocrypha, otherwise it would have been noted as such or not even mentioned at all.

Also there is not a single mention that the splitting of Immortus and Kang at the end of Avengers: Forever #12 created a divergent Immortus or that any of the previously established Immortus stories were rendered non-cannon, as you can clearly read for yourself in the last paragraph of Official Handbook of the Marvel Universe A-Z Vol 5 before the footnote regarding Pope Immortus and the elderly Immortus from 9999 AD.

While the handbook itself is vague about the unexplained "older" Immortus in both Earth X and the Terminatrix Objective, it does not discount anything either. In other words "unclarified" does not mean it won't happen in the future.

The key point here is that Immortus is a singular entity in the multiverse. Since there are no other explanation it is *logical* to assume that the activities of Immortus in Earth X and the Terminatrix Objective occur many years (if not centuries) in the Immortus' future.

That said, listing a issue of death is an argument in semantics because the character's younger self can still make appearances at any time a writer feels the need to include him in a story because he is a time traveler. Until the Terminatrix Objective story is explained different (which I somehow doubt) it's technically not inaccurate to state that Immortus died in that story.

As for the skeleton, while it is not explained, also does not eliminate the idea that it is really the dead body of Immortus from some time in the very distant future. If you think about it logically, what would be the best way to fool his enemies? Using his own future corpse, while morbid, would make a lot of sense if he were to throw off his enemies. So someone who has faked his death multiple times, he would know to do it in the most convincing way. Creating a fakery would be easier to expose than say, using his future corpse.

If you want to argue about being presumptuous, it is presumptuous to assume that Immortus is immortal, or that he would *want* to go on living forever. If you go and read every Immortus story printed (like I did) Immortus has always manipulated events to ensure that time went forward on an intended course. The only time he has ever been concerned with his continued existence was to ensure that Kang became Immortus. At no point has his motivation ever been living forever. He was just doing his job to ensure that time ended the way the Time Keepers wanted it to end.

The fact that he was working to preserve the Time Keepers timeline, which is the literal end of time, means that he is fully aware that his existence is as finite as everyone else. He must be aware of his own future demise and likely will allow it to happen because it too is part of the course of history he is trying to maintain.

Since there is no definitive answer as to how those stories play in the scheme of things, and they have not been discounted, then the issue of if Immortus is dead or not is neither right or wrong. I included it because it makes logical sense.

If we didn't put things on the wiki because a character's final fate was ambiguous we'd never update the issue of death tag because a character could always come back from the dead.

All this said: It is the Wiki's editorial policy that a character appearing to die in a comic is listed as the issue of death until otherwise clarified. So on that editorial policy the issue of death is technically valid on the following points:

(1) Immortus is a singular entity in the multiverse, as established in the handbooks.

(2) Immortus is a time traveler who manipulates history in the past, present and future as well as alternate realities.

(3) That said, barring any explanation of deception, one can assume that the Immortus appearing in the Terminatrix Objective is much older than the Immortus that has been active in the Marvel Universe, even most recently in stories that have been printed since the 2008 handbook entry. Not only is he old, he was also seen operating in the year 9999 AD which is 7984 years from now. That is a LOT of time on top of the fact that Immortus could be very much active a lot longer than that between his jaunts to and from Limbo. It can therefor be logically assumed that this is a much older Immortus than the one commonly seen.

(4) Although the Terminatrix Objective was published 22 years ago, the fact that a much older Immortus dying in this story does not render stories of a younger Immortus invalid or impossible given that he is a time traveler. Nor does the continued existence of a young Immortus eliminate the possibility that he will eventually grow old and become the Immortus that was seen in 9999 AD.

As it stands, based on the editorial policy, it is not incorrect to state that he died in this issue until such a time a story is published that explains otherwise.

On top of that, I placed a preface explaining why everything is listed as it is on the page, which should clarify any questions a reader has about the situation.

Beyond that, it's all a matter of opinion, and to argue this further is as I said -- semantics.

That said, I put the effort to read everything about Immortus, this includes every issue he appears in and every handbook entry. It's the product of months of research. I think I am more than qualified to comment on the subject. It took me an entire month to re-write the entire profile, which was a patchwork mess that was partially plagiarized from the Handbooks and partially plagiarized from the Unofficial Appendix and the rest was "bottom heavy" additions from people who didn't bother reading anything other than the most recently published stories. I know the character very well and I am willing to stand my work even though there are no clear answers in any published material. Furthermore, on the fact that most of the previous material added was plagiarized from other sources, my edits and firmer positions distance the new profile from any such possible complaints of plagiarism, which to be honest with you is -- academically -- better than parroting what official sources say. This is moreso true given the fact that the statements can be technically considered correct.