Talk: Galactus (Earth-616)/Archive 1

Talk:Galactus (Earth-616) Archive 1

FF Encyclopedia

The FF Encyclopedia confirms that, yes, Adventures of the X-Men#12 does show the true origin of Galactus, and that the stories in that title took place in the universe prior to Earth-616.

Response: The Adventures of X-Men took place in an ALTERNATE reality. The FF Encyclopedia is mistaken, it has no bearing on 616 reality. The handbook accepted this retcon on the basis that the Living Tribunal appeared in the series, and there are no alternate versions of the Living Tribunal. While that is true, he appears in and has authority over all Marvel universes and it variations. Therefore, just because the LT makes an appearance in a series does NOT automatically make it relevant to the 616 universe. This is where the writers of the Fantastic Four Encylopedia really dropped the ball.

Response to the response: The FF Encyclopedia is not mistaken, and the writers did not "drop the ball". They know full well that an appearance by the Living Tribunal does not make the story automatically relevant to 616.

The writer of the Galactus entry re-read every single appearance the character had made in preparation for writing the profile, including ones not generally considered canon for the main Marvel universe (all stories published by Marvel are canonical, they just don't all automatically hold true for other universes); this included Galactus' appearance in The Adventures of the X-Men. In that story, there was a portrayal of Galactus' origin; this showed the Living Tribunal (who, as stated by the previous contributor, has no alternate versions; it is unique in the multiverse) consult with his "hooded, spectral ally" (D.C.'s Spectre) and send the Brothers (the two beings who watch over the Marvel and DC universes, as seen in D.C. vs. Marvel) to "assume their pre-destined roles as architects of new realities." Tied in with Galan of Taa being seen to start his transformation into Galactus, the clear implication by the writer was that the reader was witnessing the creation of the Marvel and D.C. multiverses, including 616. Though being revealed in an unexpected title, the universe seen in The Adventures of the X-Men was intended by the writer to be the universe which preceded the multiverse regular Marvel comics take place in. The writer in question was Ralph Macchio, a senior Marvel editor, and the story was written with the assistance of Mike Carlin, a senior DC editor (and someone who would not normally be working on a Marvel title), so the revelations as to the relationships between Phoenix, Galactus, Eternity, the Living Tribunal and the Brothers seemingly had the endorsement of both companies.

The revelations regarding Galactus did not contradict any existing stories; it merely showed that Galan would have died with the rest of his universe BEFORE merging with Eternity to become Galactus, if the Phoenix had not acted to ensure there would be a survivor. The Phoenix did not apparently make a conscious choice of who to save, nor have a hand in turning that survivor into Galactus; it simply made sure SOMEONE survived to fill the role. Other origin stories might not show this element, but that does not make this story wrong; it's simply a newly revealed additional element.

The writer took the revelations from that story to the Marvel editors, to check if it should be included in the Galactus entry; the decision was that since there was no contradictory evidence (the unusual comic source is not contradictory evidence), then this indeed was part of Galactus' origin, as officially approved and published by Marvel. The Encyclopedia and latterly the Handbook merely reported that fact.

Pictures

All of the pictures seem to just be of Galactus standing there (plus the one with the different visions of him). It needs pictures of him talking to underlings, or doing things. Dark lord88 01:11, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree, we could always use better images. If you find any, please don't hesitate to upload them!

Cheers,

--JamieHari 01:59, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Bad Character

Is Galactus a bad character?? I think he is a neutral charakter Peter

I might say he is neutral as well. It will probably be a big debate, but is survival such a cruel thing? We eat cows, chickens and fish? I bet their 'families' aren't too happy about that either...

--Jamie 01:37, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I see your point, but we don't kill billions of people daily. And if we did do that we'd be fild with guilt (probably).

--User:MutantKingMagneto (UTC)

Thats true, but was Galactus not standing above it? I mean it is not a human or a a humanoid creature. He is more a force of nature/universe to hold the balance right. (with Death and Eternity I thought) so is an hurricane, earthquake bad?? Peter Wildenbeest 06:30, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I get what your saying. It's just kinda funny cuzz, I've always felt that humanity strecthes it chances, and when it goes to far nature takes it toll on them and youve kinda explaind that Galactus is kinda like that (well with the three Empires at least). And he has been a force of good before and we all know nature has been lets say, a best friend. User:MutantKingMagneto

Oh yeah just to say we make it so those species do not go extinct. He does not really care unless they did something for him. MutantKingMagneto

I thing Galactus is neutral. Sure, yeah, he eats planets, but he has a purpose. He is a necessary evil. I mean, if not for him, the universe of earth-616 would become overpopulated!

-User:Ngl42398

I think Galactus is also Neutral. He is a living force of nature, not really a physical entity, sure he loves to eat planets because THEY sustain him. He was also a helpful ally against Abraxas and even joined the God Squad to defeat the Chaos King.

-User:pokemonmewtwos

Status

Could mighty Galactus be considered a Diety? Perhapse with his heralds there's a pantheon of sorts.

Well, Galactus is the member of a cosmic pantheon which consists of Eternity, Death, Infinity and Oblivion. He may even have worshippers, but he doesn't consider himself a "god" like Thor or Odin do. Of course there are different definitions of "gods" even within the MU. Ben 15:59, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Is Galactus a Mutant

Is Galactus a mutant? Because he was reborn in the new universe with all this power, and maybe his mutant powers are what sustain him. But in order to support his mutant powers he needs to eat planets. I know that he aint a humanoid, but one of the whole reasons Stan Lee made the X-men was cause he heard about a three leged frog. User:MutantKingMagneto

Galactus, in my opinion, is not a mutant.

Mutation occurs when you change form from something that was previously considered 'normal'. (I know... a very broad term.)

He has been the way he is currently, since the 'big bang'.

I wouldn't consider that a mutation...

He might have even been the same before the big bang, as Galan. Who knows?

--Jamie 17:03, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I get what your saying, it's just that there are so many qusetions that the Writers leave un aswered that we have to ask here.

--User:MutantKingMagneto (UTC)

Galactus is his real name?

Is Galactus his real name? I thought Galan was his name, and he renamed himself Galactus in the modern Universe. MutantKingMagneto

Galan IS his real name...revealed at this point. We are still in the process of renaming pages to their given names and this one is up for debate. Personally, I think it should be Galan per the naming convention, but Galactus would be searched for MUCH more often. What do you think? --M1shawhan 23:26, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Galan (Earth-616) is the way to go. Make a disambig out of Galactus, since Franklin Richards Became Galactus in Earth X.--Peteparker 18:30, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Galan was his name a universe ago. Doesn't count. You get to pick your own name when you're the first living thing in a new universe. Those are the rules. A casual user will not recognize the name Galan, but they will recognize Galactus. The site exists to provide accessible information to the curious, not to obscure it behind an excessive commitment to technicalities. --PiranhaSister, 17 September 2007

That's a very interesting viewpoint. Was the previous universe still Earth-616? The title of the page is definitely not meant to confuse, but it's not meant to represent the most recognizable name for each character either. There is a Title section in the template that allows for that, and redirects will always take the casual user to the right page for what they are looking for, or at least the disambiguation page.

--Your Friendly Neighborhood Peteparker (talk • contribs • email) 17:33, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Does Galactus still use Galan anywhere for anything? That's what he calls himself. It's not a code name. He doesn't go out, do Galactus stuff, and then return to his secret lair to live a normal life as Galan. When he started calling himself Galactus, it counted as a legal name change, except there weren't any courts and no one had invented the concept of law yet or atoms that had more than 4 electrons. But still. As for whether he belongs under Earth-616, he does because there are alternate versions of Galactus, even some that don't eat planets, I think.

PiranhaSister 06:23, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

That's a very good point too, he does only refer to himself as Galactus, and never Galan. It's not like anyone else refers to themselves as purely their alternate name, so maybe his was "legally" changed. If we can find out when and why he was actually referred to as Galan, maybe that will put the final nails in the coffin on his page being named Galan. Anyone know that info?

--Your Friendly Neighborhood Peteparker (talk • contribs • email) 19:08, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia says that Galan of the planet Taa was the last person in existence in the universe prior to ours. Right before the universe was destroyed in the big crunch, the phoenix force collected all the positive emotions of all the living things that ever to create the "The Sentience of the Universe" which is something like Eternity. The Sentience said that both it and Galan will die in the big crunch, but be reborn through a joint heir in the next universe. Then the universe crunched, began again, and Galactus emerged from an energy cocoon after a few million years. So, Galan (Universe -1) technically died. Galactus is a merged being incorporating what's left of Galan. Also, there was a storyline where Reed Richards separated Galactus into two parts, Galan and the Power Cosmic. Galan then runs away and hides in another dimension, hoping the Power Cosmic won't find him. But it must have because Galactus was back for Annihilation. So make of that what you will.

PiranhaSister 01:14, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Excellent! That's an amazing amount of knowledge, Piranha! Galactus (Earth-616) it is!

--Your Friendly Neighborhood Peteparker (talk • contribs • email) 01:23, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

There's no amount of information I can't copy and paste.

PiranhaSister 13:32, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, in this week's issue of Beta Ray Bill, he says to Bill "Your people are gone no longer. Your destiny is your own once more. Consider yourself lucky. For all my power, Galan of Taa will never be able to say the same." Seems to me that he still considers himself Galan on some level, and likely sees Galactus as the role he's forced to play in the universe (and it's been explained countless times that he's a necessary force). The whole idea that because the previous universe ended doesn't make him Galan isn't really accurate. While he's definitely changed and not the same Galan, it seems more like what he underwent is similar to what the Silver Surfer underwent to become his herald. Part of his essence was lost, but the core entity was still intact, just irrevocably changed. And he definitely seems different from Aegis and Tenebrous (though I'd love to see them explained more) who have an odd connection to him.

--GrnMarvl14 02:20, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I think Galactus should be kept as his page name. the name galactus is more knowned, compared to Galan. and im pretty sure that galactus gets more searches. and btw, galactus sounds better then galan :D.

--Anvillious 14:58, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh, if only all our pagenames were based on what 'sounds best'...

Galactus (Earth-616) is very convenient, but I'm all for accuracy too. It would seem that Galactus is a merged being, with Galan of Taa being a part of that, but not the whole. In other cases of merged beings, we either have both names in the pagetitle, or we use their conjoined name as the pagetitle, or we give each part their own page, and have a page for the joined being. So I'd say those are our three options here.

— Nathan (Peteparker) (Earth-1218) (talk • contribs • email) 15:34, September 3, 2009 (UTC)

I think PiranhaSister's argument still holds: Galan was a character in an alternate/previous universe, so if anything, there might be a separate page for him. Galactus came into being with the creation of the 616-universe, which makes his name for the 616 (and most alternate universes) Galactus. The fact that this makes more sense because we all know him as Galactus is kindof like an added Bonus... ;) --edkaufman 11:48, November 15, 2009 (UTC)

Galactus is definitely a neutral character. He says he is nature,

The size of Celestials

Adult Franklin Richards was shown roughly as tall as the heads of the Celestials shown in Fantastic Four 604. This is matter of fact and not subjective. It has been established that the power of Celestials is relative to their size. Exitar is 6000 metres tall and stronger than his brethren at 600 metres. Hence, Celestials at 30-40 metres should logically be weaker than the average ones. Hence, it is relevant to mention that they were drawn much smaller than average. Antvasima (talk) 22:21, February 10, 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I have now uploaded the relevant images from Fantastic Four 604. This is the page that I was first thinking about of Franklin seeming to be the size of the mad Celestial's head. However, when I rechecked I discovered that when right next to the Celestial, he was about one third the size of the Celestial's head. Hence, using average humanoid body proportions of the head usually being at least 1/8th of the body length, and taking into account that Franklin is at most 2 metres tall, we end up with: 2x3x8=48 metres. Let's say 50 to be on the safe side. Whereas an average Celestial is 610 metres tall, and their size is established as relevant to their comparative power. Antvasima (talk) 08:09, February 11, 2014 (UTC)

The drawers not always respect the size scale. They are not always consistent. Here Thor flies next to Arishem and he is almost the same size of Arishem upper body's, even though Arishem is several hundreds meters high: http://s388.photobucket.com/user/OneDumbG0/media/Thor%20Fights/ThorvsCelestials05.jpg.html. Paradoxically he is drawn much bigger soon afterwards. Here Arishem seems to be much smaller in comparison with Thor:http://i388.photobucket.com/albums/oo326/OneDumbG0/Thor%20Fights/ThorvsCelestials02.jpg.html. My argument is that the drawer not always reproduce the precise size scale. The size varies throughout the comics. Without a official scale provided by the comic the opinions are always subjective. Archangel 1980 (talk) February 11, 2014 (UTC)

The first image is disqualified, as Arishem is very far away from Thor, whereas Thor is an insect up close, and for the second the over 2m Thor is about as tall as the thickness of the hilt of the sword. That would still make Arishem around 240-320 metres tall in that simgle image, which is much easier to rationalise as the artist simply having a hard time getting the precise scale right than a Celestial being drawn at less than 1/1000 their usual volume. As for my calculation earlier, then no, that is not subjective. The Celestials were shown outright as 50 metres, not several hundred, just 50. That is an enormous difference, and afaIk the mad Celestials were consistently drawn at this much smaller size from their introduction during the council of Reeds saga and onwards, whereas they were generally drawn at several hundred metres during the 4th Host and Pangoria arcs. Hence, it cannot be seen as a temporary artist's mistake, but rather intentional. Remember that time in Gaiman's Eternals series when the 30 metres tall Giant Man stood next to a massively towering Dreaming Celestial? That's roughly how the mad Celestials would look next to a full size Arishem. Antvasima (talk) 18:25, February 11, 2014 (UTC)

How did you calculate the distance between Arishem and Thor? In the first picture of the first image they seem very close to me. Again, this is a subjective and unbiased statement. I could claim that Franklin was far away from the Celestial based on the same argument. Right after this another picture portrays properly the size difference, what demonstrates the inconsistency of the drawer. Finally, in the first picture of the second image Arishem has visually about ten to twenty times the size of Thor. No way he is depicted as 300 times bigger. In short, i see no reason to classify these Celestials as "small" Celestials. Archangel 1980 (talk) February 11, 2014 (UTC)

Antvasima, i wont be able to talk to you about this issue anymore. I dont have available time. Talk to some administrator about changes on the page. Thanks! Archangel 1980(talk) February 11, 2014 (UTC)

Look at the first image again. When Thor stands right next to Arishem's foot he is an insect in comparison, and in other images was shown reaching low clouds if I remember correctly, whereas Franklin is pushing through the Ceöestial's head he is one third the size. In the second image the best comparison gauge would be that Thor is shown as tall as the Odinsword is thick, which is also right next to Arishem when it pierces his body. From memory, I estimated the thickness of the sword as 1/15th to 1/20th the size of Arishem's head, which makes at least 2m×15×8=240. However, when checking the artwork directly, I now measure that it was only about 1/12th, so that makes around 2m*12*8=192m. However, I remember these mad Celestials being drawn as small when they were first introduced as well, so it isn't a temporary error.

Nice talking with you in any case. Antvasima (talk) 06:36, February 12, 2014 (UTC)

In Thanos Imperative 5, Galactus appear same size that the other abstracts, seemingly celestials. Undoniel (talk) 12:00, February 22, 2014 (UTC)

Galactus' alignment

Why is Galactus classified as "bad" instead of "neutral?" As far as I know, he has always been treated as a neutral force more akin to a force of nature or Death. He feeds only to survive, has sometimes fought against universal threats, keeps his word, and has been confirmed by Eternity to by a fundamental force of the universe and all-around higher being. In one story when he lost the Power Cosmic he even went to the Negative Zone to try and delay becoming Galactus again. The stories I have read of him generally portray him as indifferent to mortals or lower species and only getting angry when they provoke him. I have read several debates on the subject over the years and the impression I got was the majority always saw him as a neutral force doing what is necessary to survive. What are these stories of him committing genocide for petty reasons? And are they truly dominant enough to overrule other characterization?Seekquaze1 (talk) 01:39, June 10, 2014 (UTC)

Eternity "validating" Galactus' existence was simply the opinion of John Byrne, somebody most known nowadays for behaving very badly online, so I won't take his attempts to justify planetary serial-genocide as my ultimate moral guideline.

In Jonathan Hickman's Fantastic Four, he was shown attempting to commit genocide on counter-Earth for having the audacity to kill a future version of himself in self-defence out of sheer spite, something followed up on in the current King Thor arc, in which he states that he has long wanted to consume the Earth for having the audacity to stand up to him.

In addition, it was established in the first Secret War that he could just as easily feed on non-sentient stars rather than sentient civilisations, or on other energy sources during the Thanos Hunger story. Yet, he extremely seldom takes that option instead of committing genocide on trilllions of innocent sentient beings.

Also, Galactus as a concept always felt forced and contrived. It doesn't make any sense for that sort of being to feed on people rather than pure energy, and he always seemed intended as a massively moral relativist attempt to justify any transgression whatsoever, no matter how despicable, even serial-genocide, in the name of personal self-preservation and supremacist entitlement/access to personal scale of power, by any completely made up irrational nonsense manner whatsoever, including Abraxas, even though the power of mere planets should be nowhere near enough to contain a being that destroys universes.

Basically, even disregarding that it has been established that Galactus sometimes takes pleasure in committing genocide, and as Thanos, or rather Jim Starlin, put it, violates his social contract with the universe by not consistently seeking alternative energy sources, if we put a "neutral" banner on Galactus, we approve every utterly inane attempt to, from a few very human writers who do not remotely have such moral authority, justify genocide by any means necessary. And that would be a very sad and brainwashed reaction. Antvasima (talk) 06:44, June 10, 2014 (UTC)

Both for Odin and Galactus, there is a difference of scale with us. You're not bad because you eat a steak, you're not bad because you step. Same here. They're father of gods and cosmic beings, drove by others agendas. They're neutral. (and I think Galactus can't feed on pure energy (something in the arc with the Hunger thing) and needs some specific energies (like something Asgardian egg whatever, I haven't finisher that arc)). By the way, current Marvel classic characters are mostly neutral. Undoniel (talk) 18:53, June 10, 2014 (UTC)

Well, as above I couldn't disagree more, and find human writers coming up with very contrived ways to justify serial-genocide an absolutely chilling act of moral relativism. I am never ever going to perceive Galactus othervise, and utterly despise the character's entire conceptual existence and the ideology that he represents. There is a major difference between eating steak and hunting a sentient species to absolute extinction if you have the technology to produce well tasting artificial food. Other characters of the same scale who have done less harm do not escape the bad rating. There is no good reason for Galactus to get special treatment.

To quote my Odin entry: "Supposed godhood, or rather great power, is not a moral relativist get out of jail free card, simply due to possessing a greater access to scale. As the Living Tribunal or rather Matt Fraction recently said to Doctor Doom, it simply deprives you of all access to excuses for your evil actions." Antvasima (talk) 19:32, June 10, 2014 (UTC)

• • Correct me if I am wrong, but it sounds like your are placing your personal opinion above what is established in the comics or the opinions of others simply because you do not agree with what is in the comics. What John Bryne wrote is canon/continuity regardless of what you think or how he has behaved online because it has occurred in the comics unless something else in the comics has come along to invalidate it which to my knowledge has not. It would also have been approved by Marvel's editors at the time and to my knowledge has not been changed since. Heck, the first story done by Stan Lee and Jack Kirby treated Galactus as a being beyond good and evil. Steve Englehart elaborated on it further. So Bryne is hardly the only one to support Galactus being more of a neutral force beyond human concepts of good and evil. Marvel's reasoning works within their universe and some other people do agree with it even though do you not agree with it. A few writers have had Galactus feed on stars and other sources of energy, but these tend to be the exception. Pretty much the plot says there is some energy in life-bearing planets Galactus has to feed upon and that is the only source that can sustain him long term. Thanos' speech means little since as Galactus stated Thanos himself was a hypocrite who excused his actions on the basis of some of his victims being brought back to life. Thanos has often and still does proceed with his own plans regardless of what others think or will do. Galactus spoke the truth in this case when he said "the fates" or in this case Death and Eternity have stated Galactus needs to live an is an integral part of the universe something Thanos confirms in that very speech. Taking the whole thing together, it sounds less like Thanos is chastising Galactus for feeding on inhabited worlds, but for the short sightness of his actions...a different matter all together. Galactus may feed out of anger a few times, but the vast majority of the time he is neutral about it. He does it to survive. I would think for overall alignment we would judge him as a whole instead of a few instances. Seekquaze1 (talk) 23:43, June 10, 2014 (UTC)

I tend to think outside of the box/narrative presented to me, and do not blindly accept any heinous argument whatsoever, if that is what you mean. I would not accept a story ideology that presented a thrill-killing psychopathic mercenary, who enjoys torturing and raping innocent people to death and cannibalising their corpses as heroic or laudable either, and that is enormously less extreme than Galactus. Especially when originally presented by a very unsympathetic rightwing extremist like Byrne, who through Odin argued that the trillions too weak to defend themselves from Galactus deserved to die, which sounds remarkably crypto-fascist, regardless of Byrne's personal self-perception. That Englehart introduced the concept of Galactus acting as a balancing agent for the imbalances between life and death didn't really make any sense, as everything dies naturally just fine on its own without anybody helping it along.

As for being "above good and evil", there is no such thing except when applied to nonsentient creatures and forces, certainly not a being that talks with his victims before eating them for breakfast. Especially not when crafted by mere human writers as a subconscious means for them and readers to think that if they were powerful enough, they would be beyond judgement and free to do any heinous thing that they want. That is what the ideology that the argument of "above good and evil" fundamentally invokes.

Regarding the whole "justified for committing atrocities upon innocents for the sake of survival" argument, that can easily be applied to most atrocities throughout human history, but it does not make them any less despicable. As Brian Bendis put it for Magneto and even the Hulk (even though Hulk has done far more good than bad) Galactus is basically morally obliged to kill himself, as his life isn't really worth more than trillions of innocents, and again given that it has been introduced that Galactus can feed on other things than say babies and social workers, this negates every single excuse that the character has for his actions.

Also, if we are going to "take an average" from "the biggest mass-murderer in existence eating the lives and souls of billions of babies" for pleasure and for survival, we still end up with an unequivocal "bad" rating.

In addition, although I agree with Thanos being just as bad as Galactus, Jim Starlin's argument about Galactus breaking a social contract with the universe, and that the armies of the universe should eventually rise against and punish him for his selfish gluttony, is one that I agree with.Antvasima (talk) 10:28, June 14, 2014 (UTC)

• If I understand you, you are saying you apply the same standards of morality to every type of creature living being regardless of how different those type of lifeforms may be. Is this correct? Following that, you would regard the cosmic entity Death (Cosmic Entity) to be evil if it decided there was an imbalance in favor of life and sought to actively correct this balance by causing more death. Correct? There is a difference between blindly accepting what the writer writes as "true" no matter what (which I do not) and rejecting completely what the writer write because it does not agree with your own views. I would not accept your example of a psychotic mercenary as laudable even if the writer presented it that was for a slew of reasons. Among which, but not limited too, said mercenary is likely human or a lifeform on the same level of a human and said behavior is not necessary for survival. In Byrne's story, it was not just Odin, but Eternity aka the Universe itself stated Galactus was necessary. Galactus is different from your mercenary example in that he is far from being human or human like despite sharing some human like characteristics is not human and in many ways very different. Also, one should compare both your example and Galactus to Tyrant...a being created by and very much like Galactus. However, a noticeable difference being unlike Galactus who does what he must to survive Tyrant activley went around conquering worlds and slaughtering anyone who opposed him making him more like your mercenary then Galatus. Galactus does not kill out of thrill seeking or normally go about trying to hurt others, rape, etc. Tyrant did. For such behavior Galactus was the one who stopped Tyrant the first time around and opposed him upon his return.

• For good and evil, who decides such things? Whose view ultimately trumps all? You? Me? In the context of the Marvel universe who? Eternity? The Living Tribunal? Said Tribunal to my knowledge has never condemned Galactus and confirmed his stats of universal importance. Is it the writers then? Since everyone within the Marvel Universe says Galactus is neutral at best and a necessary part of the universe. You are free to disagree with this and not read stories featuring Galactus, but why would your view trump all of their and the opinions of fans who do view Galactus as different enough from humans to be considered neutral?

• "Justified for committing atrocities upon innocents for the sake of survival" example is applying the actions of humans to a being who is radically not human. If you believe a single morality applies to all possible lifeforms in the universe no matter how different then yes that is true. However, to my knowledge that view is hardly universal among humans and is not what with Marvel goes with. Galactus' ability to sustain himself on things other than planets is not the most consistent of things, but the general way writers portray it is other sources of energy can only sustain him temporarily. The biospheres of planets offer him something he cannot find elsewhere. Otherwise, Starlin could have had Thanos point this out as an obvious source of food alternatively to planets. For better or worse, Galactus must feed on planets to survive. A permanent alternative has yet to be found.

• You are free to agree with Starlin's viewpoint that one day the races of the universe will band together to destroy Galactus. Marvel itself goes with the idea that Galactus is destined to serve a higher purpose which if they did destroy him would never come about. Seekquaze1 (talk) 02:47, June 15, 2014 (UTC)

First of all, Galactus and even Eternity are not truly “higher powers”. They are empty cardboard cutouts sprouting whatever empty nonsense slogans the writer wants them to sprout. All the fictional cosmic entities ever conceived of combined, on their own have less substance than a feather when applied against real sentient human beings, who invented them in the first place.

In this case, if you tear them away you get John Byrne’s smugly arrogant face grinning back at you. Appealing to them or even Byrne as having any form of elevated higher moral authority is a truly empty gesture. To say that I have no respect whatsoever for the authority of either would be the understatement of the century. I do not accept thoroughly idiotic and amoral ideologies, as you can see in the quote section further down.

You argue that all morality is relative so we shouldn’t adhere any morality even to beings as extreme as this, yet simultaneously appeal to Eternity as being some kind of almost religious moral authority figure, which I find contradictory.

In addition, even in-universe there are plenty of much higher beings than Galactus who are either shown to subscribe to morality and take responsibility for their actions (including The Living Tribunal and the Infinites) or who are classified as evil (such as James Jaspers and the Marquis of Death). If they are judged by reasonable moral standards, why should Galactus receive special treatment?

Death as a sentient being is an utterly inane concept to start with. It is just a natural process for living beings when entropy kicks in. And as always, when human writers craft a character in a human-like conversationalist fashion, it has to be judged by human standards, relative to culture or not. That said, when simply handled as a construction builder of afterlives as in Chris Claremont’s portrayal, I would classify Death as a morally good and responsible being. When handled as a force that strives to accelerate the destruction of all life, rather than take it at its allotted time, as in Jim Starlin’s portrayal, I would classify the sentient being as evil. There is a very inconsistent portrayal in progress, and logically if it was sentient, there would be no reason for it to accelerate anything’s demise, as it would claim them all in due time anyway.

Again, Galactus has indeed been established to be able to sustain himself from alternative energy sources, and to do commit genocide for petty personal revenge. He has been established to originate as a humanoid, to be a sentient conversational being with human-like personality, and is structurally crafted from human mind patterns, etcetera. He is not a non-sentient force of nature; a slave without personal will or personality; or a being so elevated that it does not notice what it is doing to sentient life forms as in the Infinites case. There is no good valid reason for him to be judged outside of that context.

Your habitual use of any moral relativistic hypothetical “loopholes”, including, predictably, that no single morality can be used for anything, could still be applied to any sentient human-like, human-invented, human speech using character whatsoever that “just follows its nature” to justify any ridiculous extremes whatsoever, which means abolishing the alignment system in its entirety. At the end of the day we need some loose generalised moral guideposts, which goes for all characters on this Wiki. “Good is helping innocents. Evil is hurting innocents.” As Peter David/Layla Miller almost put it, is a decent enough start for something like this.

I wasn’t the one who originally gave Galactus the “Bad” rating, but your supposed outrage that “I alone” have the “audacity” to consider moral relativistic/moral nihilistic propaganda and rationalisations taken to mind numbing degrees, by some people on the Internet with sometimes pseudo-religious adherence to these characters and concepts, to be unreliable, can easily be reversed. Why should your view that genocide on innocent bystanders is perfectly acceptable behaviour if performed by a very contrived human-envisioned alien of humanoid origins, or anybody of sufficient amount of personal power, override the majority of western humanity who would probably heavily disagree with you?

Mind you, I am usually willing to discuss different moral viewpoints, and am well aware of my own moral limitations, but whenever it comes to genocide, the most heinous transgression known to mankind, talking with justifiers tends to give me the same unsettling disgusted mood as when I have encountered fervent Holocaust deniers. (I even wrote segments of my story based on the experiences… in chapter 4, 9, and 11 if anybody is interested) If you wish you and your supposed genocide-happy Galactus-worshipping friends to be taken seriously as having a stronger and more relevant moral agency than myself, it might be an idea to not support extremely contrived rationalisations for genocide in the first place.

The true reason that Galactus isn’t killed off permanently for his atrocities and sometimes receives said extremely contrived rationalisations, and hand-waves, is solely for commercial purposes/that he is considered a resource to build stories around. He is still utterly morally indefensible and probably one of the most genuinely offensive concepts ever invented when somewhat deconstructed.

To quote from a literature professor who largely shares my viewpoints (although I do not completely agree with him): http://www.whiterose.org/howlingcurmudgeons/archives/005911.html

“Existing beyond the scale of human life doesn't make Galactus "neutral" and doesn't remove his actions from human moral judgment, especially when they result in the deaths of billions of humans or equivalent sentient beings.”

“I was deeply dissatisfied by Reed's use of his placid faith in a higher power to justify planetary-scale genocide.”

“Notice how, over the course of Reed's speech, Galactus slips from "beyond good and evil" to "neutral" to "part of some greater good," all for no better reason than Reed "cannot believe he would be allowed to exist" otherwise (this in spite of his disclaimer that "it does not require belief in any supreme being" to accept his reasoning).”

“[Reed Richards uses] Logic without any connection to real-world observation or experience… The theory about Galactus's greater good is just Reed's guesswork, stemming from his assumptions that there is a supreme order of the universe and that such an order must necessarily work for the ultimate benefit of all.”

“Byrne wheels out a procession of literal dei ex machina - Odin, Galactus, then Eternity himself - to show up, tell the court Reed was right for little or no reason beyond their own authority, and then blow away.”

“[Byrne] makes repeated praise of Richards's logic, of the perfection of M'ndavian justice, of the place of Galactus in the cosmos, yet all of those rational constructs turn out to be shams, founded on blind faith, divine authority, and an unquestioned assumption that whatever is, is right. Richards and Byrne [rationalise] a system of belief that can be used to justify any suffering, no matter how evil or senseless, if it might be part of some inscrutable plan.”

“Byrne, as if realizing these implications, attempts to back out of this fatalist dead end on the last page of the issue.” “What about Galactus, Watcher? Is his task ended now? Or will everyone just have to content themselves with watching happily the next time he consumes a world?” “Uatu's answer:” “To render things thus would be to rob life-kind of free will, and in all the cosmos but one being is deprived of that freedom: Galactus.” “The Watcher assures Byrne that:” “Galactus will go on. The testing will continue, until that distant day he finds a world with enough power to stop him, to end for all time his cosmic hunger.” “Byrne's already flaccid argument falls apart like soggy newspaper. If Galactus's ultimate purpose is to test species in some pseudo-Darwinian mechanism until he dies, then the Fantastic Four have interfered with that mechanism countless times. Moreover, if Lilandra's court is supposed to let nature take its course when Galactus eliminates the Skrulls, why isn't the same true for Reed when humanity has a chance to eliminate Galactus?”

“[Galactus as an allegory for God] doesn't work perfectly - Galactus is only a destroyer, not a creator, and part of the same moral plane as his victims - and by the time Byrne strips him down to a weak Darwinian winnowing mechanism that potential is lost.”

“This Galactus isn't God at all, he's the Lisbon earthquake - and who wouldn't want to prevent that, if given the chance?”

“But Byrne, unwilling and unable to do any lasting damage to Marvel's first franchise by sentencing Reed or Galactus to death (although he's perfectly happy to kill off Roy Thomas's Skrull characters), turns to [The belief system that everything is automatically ordained to the best of all worlds by nature itself] as a hamfisted justification for his maintenance of the Marvel status quo. It isn't enough for him to restore things to the typical Fantastic Four state of grace; he also has to convince us that the characters were right, and he is right, to do so. And that may be the most pernicious rationalization of all.” Antvasima (talk) 14:52, June 17, 2014 (UTC)

• This is getting rather long and I have for the most part said my peace so I'll just hit the high points. We disagree and need the opinion of a third party:

-- One, Eternity is a higher being within the context of the Marvel Universe which is where I am viewing this issues from...within the context of Marvel. Yes, these characters are created by humans, but they are attempts to make something alien. However, since they are created by humans they are humanlike since human only have ourselves as a point of reference. Two, I never said all morality was relative. I do believe some morality is objective for human beings. But I do not believe human morality necessarily applies or applies completely to being radically different from it. I would consider a five+ billion year old, vastly-powerful entity who is confirmed to be the third force in the universe to be radically different from humans. Three, those beings do take responsibility for their actions, but they ascribe to different morality. The LT has threatened to destroy Earth before and would have had Dr. Strange failed. The Infinities renounced the criticisms of Thor by using the same justification Galactus uses...that they did what they must. Four, Jaspers and the Marquis are both still human. Galactus is more like the Infinities and Lt than mutant humans. Five, I am not singling you out. You are the only one responding. Who else do you expect me to respond to? Six, I do not know what the majority of the world thinks. I am going by arguments I have read on the Internet and comments by posters like Undoniel and others who debated this before above. Finally, I am not denying the Holocaust. I do not worship Galactus. To my knowledge no one does. "Extremely contrived rationalizations for genocide" are surprisingly common in fiction often by portraying the target as an entire race of chaotic evil beings. If you do not like that I suggest you avoid those stories. I am looking at the extremes in fictions not found in real life. Hence why it is called fiction and where I discuss it. In Star Wars, Luke SkyWalker killed over a million humans when he destroyed the Death Star. Does that make him an evil mass murderer? Are you saying Galactus is no different from Tyrant? Another example, Stargate: Atlantis, the primary enemy was an alien race called the Wraith that could only feed on humans to survive. Should the Wraith have committed racial suicide? Are they no different than the Goa'uld who engaged in virtually every act of evil you can name? Byrne' story does have it flaws, but like I stated this is a position supported by other editors and writers dating back from Stan Lee. I don't see it as fair to single Byrne out. And if you do wish to bring the real-world into this as you seem to want to, the idea that there is a supreme order of the universe and all suffering no matter how terrible has a purpose is a viewpoint held by many about God. What is the phrase? "It is all God's plan." Oh, and once again please do not presume to know my entire position on things or to judge me. We are discussing a fictional character in a fictional universe. Please stick to the topic at hand. Seekquaze1 (talk) 22:38, June 17, 2014 (UTC)

I also find this very tiresome and exasperating. I have some ADD, so it is hard for me to focus the necessary energy. I was into pointlessly debating online over 10 years ago. Nowadays, I am definitely not.

1) Again, only having ourselves as a point of reference for their creation is part of the reason why I think that it is inane to judge these human-behaving, human-personality, and in Galactus’ case human-originating, characters by other standards than those used to judge their creators.

2) Again, he originated as a human, and he behaves and converses like a human, including with his sentient victims. There is no valid reason for him to be judged differently, and regardless what you believe, your arguments do genuinely come across as the ultimate form of moral relativism and monstrous utilitarianism.

3) The Infinites renounced Thor for having the audacity to presume to stand above them in terms of divinity, even though he is a small godling and they are higher-dimensional entities, more than infinitely above him. They are genuinely so high that they did not notice the damage that they were doing to lower reality, and once informed about it sacrificed one of their number in order to repair it. The LT’s characterisation depends on the writer. Matt Fraction and Jim Starlin portrayed him as benevolent, stating that: “With great power comes great responsibility, and little happiness”, and that once you have achieved godhood you are automatically stripped of all excuses for evil actions. His less benevolent portrayal of being willing to destroy the Earth would be regrettably acceptable if it was a truly last resort to safeguard a much greater number of innocents, but not if he had other much better options, and being virtually omnipotent, he logically probably would have.

4) Galactus is a human that ascended to a higher level. Jaspers and the Marquis are humans that ascended to a much higher level than Galactus. Considering that you tend to argue that godhood and personal power justifies being able to commit serial-genocide on lower sentient life forms, I consider the true difference marginal. Also, Galactus is nowhere near the scale of either the Infinites or the Tribunal. According to Jim Starlin’s Thanos annual, he is on roughly the same level as Odin and the Stranger.

5) Okay. I thought that you assumed that I was somehow the only one having these viewpoints.

6) It is probably safe to assume that the parts of the western world that do not belong to certain media fandoms are largely against the notion of justified genocide due to personal entitlement and social-Darwinism.

7) It is surprisingly common with fans who perceive fictional cosmologies as a substitute for personal religion, but I apologise if this does not apply to you.

8) That’s a difference between you and me. You say that you only perceive it as fiction, whereas I perceive it as insidious fascist ideology propaganda.

9) It does make Luke Skywalker a mass-murderer, but he did strictly target hostile enemy combat troops in self-defence, so I wouldn’t call him evil for doing so.

10) Again, I’m saying that Galactus has been established to commit genocide for petty personal reasons, to have a very human-like free will personality, to be able to feed on other power sources than sentient life forms, and that it does not logically make any sense whatsoever for a being of that stature to not simply feed on ANY type of raw energy in the first place. Yet, the writers keep having him feed on billions of innocent defenceless bystanders, including children. I find the entire concept extremely offensive.

11) I haven’t watched the show, but if they could only feed on humans to survive, then the entire concept is ridiculously contrived to the point of being inane. An ALIEN species could not have survived in the first place without a varied flora of native life to feed on, and if they had become scientifically advanced enough for space-time travel between worlds, then they could definitely produce artificial forms of nourishment. I don’t think it is a good example. In addition, as the link I provided details, an additional problem with Galactus is that John Byrne tries to force the argument that humanity and other sentient life forms do not even have the right to defend themselves from the threat, which I don’t think is the case with the show you mentioned.

12) Byrne was the one who write the modernised origin story as well as “The Trial Of Galactus”. He was the one who inserted a conceptual cancer into the fundamental structure of the Marvel Universe, turning its very nature into officially sanctioned, endorsed, and applauded social Darwinism and entitled moral-relativistic genocide and cannibalism. As I understand it, other writers mostly had little choice but to try to apply justifying band-aids to the tumour.

The sentience of the previous universe even said that it created a “galactic ravager”, and: “Let a Universe a’borning beware!” when it created Galactus. Meaning: Galactus was created as a final act of spite and malice towards the creation replacing it.

13) I think that if a social system itself is thoroughly satanically corrupt, it needs to be structurally changed for the better.

If all suffering of innocents is actually directly caused by any god’s plan, as opposed to simply being ambivalent to, or unable to stop it, with no true good moral justification for the extremes, then, although I strongly disagree with many of the disgusting extremes of “Preacher”, I agree that this would include the moral right to destroy the gods who are directly responsible.

14) Okay. My apologies. It is not the first time that I have had these types of discussions, which is part of the reason why I am exasperated by them, and it has not been uncommon that the people who use these types of arguments actually ARE for real life genocidal level social Darwinism and entitlement.

In any case, we are not getting anywhere, and I'm very tired of this. I think we'll have to agree to disagree. Antvasima (talk) 11:18, June 20, 2014 (UTC)

A storm isn't good or evil. Same for Galactus in this universe. He is part of the balance, but as a sentient being, he sometimes enjoy (haven't seen that a lot, except in the Thor series, and he is more bitter than enjoying) or regret his doing. He even try sometimes to repress or to find a substitute. I haven't seen his current story after AoU, but as Galactus, the common one we're used to have, he is neutral. If I don't mistake (and if wikipedia or whatever site I've seen is correct), he must feed to live to be there at the end of the universe to reform a cosmic egg around his herald who will be the next Galactus. Never saw that, but maybe someone saw that in some What if?. But it does not fit with his own birth related to the Phoenix. Well, haven't read this story neither. Undoniel (talk) 18:01, June 18, 2014 (UTC)

Galactus isn’t a storm. To be a storm, and absolved of all responsibility, he would have to be non-sentient, or so far high above the universe that he doesn’t even notice any damage he is doing to sentient life forms. Please check out the link that I provided to the history professor above. He rationally dismantles Galactus’ entire justification for being pretty thoroughly, and might change your mind. Antvasima (talk) 11:18, June 20, 2014 (UTC)

He is a Cosmic Being, an Abstract, serves balances between Eternity and Death, feed for survive, regret sometimes and is haunted by his victims, enjoy less, look for substitutes sometimes.

He fought at the battle of the Fault along other Abstracts, he fought along the heroes during the Chaos War..

"The allegory doesn't work perfectly - Galactus is only a destroyer, not a creator, and part of the same moral plane as his victims - and by the time Byrne strips him down to a weak Darwinian winnowing mechanism that potential is lost. [...] This Galactus isn't God at all, he's the Lisbon earthquake - and who wouldn't want to prevent that, if given the chance?"

This story of survival Darwinism applied by Galactus is new to me, and never seen it in-comics.

What I catch mostly from this article is that the dude dislikes Byrne, and his point seems more to be "it is right to try to stop Galactus" ? Yes. But because you want to stop something/someone doesn't mean it is a bad. It's a question of interest.

The thing about Galactus being the start of the next universe is allegedly in a story called "The Last Galactus Story". Not present on the wikia... Undoniel (talk) 13:18, June 20, 2014 (UTC)

I have answered the rest of the points previously above, but Galactus only participated in the Chaos War and against the Cancerverse out of self-preservation, not out of benevolence, and if he truly regretted his actions he would allow himself to die rather than set himself above the worth of trillions. As for restarting the universe, that is out of continuity, and also illogical, as if I remember correctly, the universe will not contract according to science, just continue to expand until it suffers from heat death/entropy, and I don't see any rational relation between killing planetary populations and serving as a cosmic bomb. As for the history professor, he apparently neither likes Byrne's justifications for Galactus nor Byrne himself, much like me. Antvasima (talk) 14:02, June 20, 2014 (UTC)

That's your opinion that it was only on self-preservation. My opinion, and I thought it was hinted in the comics, is that he was there to defend his universe, and behind it the balance, as the Cancerverse was the unbalancing factor.

I don't think suicide is the best idea when you're supposed to preserve the balance of the universe.

According to science, there are multiple untested theories, including the big crunch (But here, what wikipedia state that in this story it is a big bang caused by the release of Galactus energy)(and Marvel doesn't care much about science anyway).

If you don't see the rational relation, that's maybe why you don't get Galactus: It's not a rational thing. (Well, here it could be "living until it is time to die in an explosion to restart a new universe, as there is no more life left to eat, and so no more balance to preserve") But I think you don't want to get that: He is a cosmic force who is tasked with the balance of the universe. And furthermore, if he does not do it, he die. He's almost a victim here. That's almost the same thing as Michael Peterson...

Well, another example: Were the pilots and staff of the Enola Gay bad people ? I don't think so. But "they had" (I will not enter a polemique about whether the bombs were necessary) to do it, with the consequences we know.

And maybe Byrne wrote a crappy Galactus, but it has been established by other authors that Galactus is neutral.

I could search for more human examples, but this is irrelevant: It is not a question of morality, this is not on a human scale, and yes it does affect the fact he isn't bad although he does bad things, as a planetary scale. Here we enter cosmic plans and cold (ir)rationality. And yes, killing countless beings is horrible. But rather that than starting an effect who could affect more. (and yes, I admit I'm stubborn as well.)

Undoniel (talk) 22:12, June 20, 2014 (UTC)