FANDOM


User:Living Tribunal's question

If the One-Above-All wished to destroy the entire omniverse and/or beyond, then yes in theory he/she could. --Greatestvillain 05:14, December 27, 2010 (UTC)

Is the power level of the One-Above-All more than infinity?

Yes. Higher than Infinity, higher than Eternity, higher than the Living Tribunal. Lokiofmidgaard 08:08, January 15, 2011 (UTC)

No what I meant is that the power level of the One-Above-All higher than the number infinite?Living Tribunal 07:23, January 16, 2011 (UTC)

If you mean power grids, then the OAA would presumably be 7 across the board, as that's the highest number on the grids. If you mean some other kind of measurement, OAA is presumably pretty well immeasurable. There is no number "infinite"; you mean the mathematical concept infinity, which isn't strictly a number, and no, OAA isn't higher than that, because by definition infinity has no limit and is bigger than any number you could quantify. Lokiofmidgaard 11:11, January 16, 2011 (UTC)


Omniverse

I Think he should be named back to One-Above-All(Omniverse)

I'm unsure of the Omniverse Designation. Why not just have it be "One-Above-All" in that case?
Nathan (Peteparker) (Earth-1218) (talkcontribsemail) 22:31, March 29, 2011 (UTC)
Two reasons:
1. We should always have SOME designation, if not an Earth designation then Omni/Multi/whatever-verse for the sake of consistency and to avoid confusion.
2. Because there's also a Celestial known as the One-Above-All.
--GrnMarvl14 22:34, March 29, 2011 (UTC)


And a third point: I'm not too familiar with this character, but where has it been stated, comic-wise, that he's unique in the omniverse/multiverse? If this IS another aspect of God, like some people seem to think, then shouldn't there be a Spectre-entity in every universe?
--GrnMarvl14 22:40, March 29, 2011 (UTC)
The "Specter-entity" equivalent is the Living Tribunal. Arrancar79 00:21, March 30, 2011 (UTC)
How does that make sense? The Living Tribunal is a confirmed Omniversal judge, whereas the Spectre seems to be a DC-specific avatar of vengeance.
--GrnMarvl14 01:13, March 30, 2011 (UTC)
Just change it back to One-Above-All (Omniverse) and case solved. And for peterparker, the definition of Omniverse is the "thing that encompasses all realities, all timelines, all multiverses, from Marvel and DC to Image and Dark Horse, everything in comic book fiction".
User:Mikhail Mxyzptlk, 9:30, May 26, 2011 (UTC)
The cosmology (for lack of a better term) is not a perfect match between DC and Marvel, but it is what it is. The Tribunal protects the omniversal balance, but is not at the top of the ladder, that would be the One-Above-All. It's not an aspect of God, it IS GOD as far as Marvel is concerned. That's exactly why you won't get much info on it. Oh yea, didn't the FF meet OAA in the form of Jack Kirby? Arrancar79 23:26, March 30, 2011 (UTC)
And, honestly, that's where I'm confused on the whole "One-Above-All is God", and I'd like some sourcing for it. Just seems to me that he would outrank any known Earthly deity (but that's my opinion). And, again, Spectre and Living Tribunal just don't mesh up (unless it's been stated in one of the DC/Marvel crossovers).
--GrnMarvl14 23:56, March 30, 2011 (UTC)
Yes, it was the DC/Marvel crossover. As far as I can tell (sorry, can't source it, all speculation) OAA maybe/is/isn't the Judeo-Christian-Muslim God, maybe something else, but will be intentionally left vague. Some don't like mystery, I do. I think it adds a lot of weight to the story having it left to the interpretation of the reader. I'm sure it works a lot better for Marvel as a company to use the OAA, you could imagine how it would go over having Thanos bitch slap one of the big three with the Infinity Gauntlet. With OAA that can't happen, and if you want to think it's your God that "they're really talking about" I guess you can, or look at it as the biggest Abstract there is. Win-Win for Marvel. Arrancar79 23:35, March 31, 2011 (UTC)
To answer your question, as far as I am concerned, Spectre is his counterpart in role and Michael Demiurgos is his counterpart in power. That's how I learned it.
User: Mikhail Mxyzptlk

If no one minds me asking, why is there confusion in the One-Above-All's identity? In my opinion, it's kind of easy to figure out that this character is a fiction portrayal of God. I don't mean to seem arrogant, I'm just wondering. --ZombieKiller123 23:15, April 11, 2011 (UTC)ZombieKiller123

Except that different cultures have different ideas of a supreme being. If it's been said, or even heavily hinted that this is meant to be Yawheh/the Christan God, then fine, but if he's just meant as a supreme being, and we're assuming that's meant to be the Christian God...then that's another matter.
--GrnMarvl14 01:41, April 12, 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, and again sorry if I seemed arrogant in my question. --ZombieKiller123 01:51, April 12, 2011 (UTC)ZombieKiller123

Finally took a look at Living Tribunal's last Handbook profile. It specifically refers to Living Tribunal and One-Above-All as MULTIVERSAL entities, and only POSSIBLY omniversal.
--GrnMarvl14 19:27, May 27, 2011 (UTC)

Well, maybe, admittedly, you do have a point. Well, first of all, though the "God" issue with Marvel is far less clear than with other comic companies', I don't think, like, the Marvel writers were trying to model this character/being/concept after the Hindu Trimurti or Zeus when they first introduced this Supreme Being concept, personally. Didn't the Tribunal first refer to his unseen master, which he represented, during Warlock's cosmic trial? Still, you might wonder why the Presence chose the Israelites over the billions of other worlds and civilizations in existence to serve as His religion in DC, but it has been explicitly shown thus in many issues (such as the 14th issue of Spectre, where Nabu literally clashes with the Spectre in Egypt). I could be wrong, but I think that this entity IS more or less synonymous with "God".

But, yes, I think that it might be a little more suitable for the One-Above-All to be labelled as "Multiversal", at least for now. An argument could be made that all of the Supreme Beings in each of their Multiverses basically represent the same single concept and power, but that would make this even more complicated. But it has to be noted, if the Handbooks are at all of any consideration on this wiki, we should carefully take into account exactly what they say. Halowars22 21:45, May 31, 2011 (UTC)

I see it as God. Nothing less. Could destroy everythingif he was like that. Not even Marvel Zombies could stop him. Not trying to be an a-hole, but that's what I think. OAA can be whichever you want, but one thing is certain...he is THE God of Marvel. --Griffin23

wow...I just wanted to say, this page sure has gotten a lot of Facebook likes. Like, about a month ago, maybe there were 60-70, I remember, and now, more than 90...someone did a fairly decent job here...I mean, 91 likes? Even Jean Grey (both main page and Earth-616 TOGETHER doesn't have that many, and that's really saying something). what are the facebook likes for, though? Avengerlogan2121 01:33, December 14, 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and what is the Presence and Spectre? Is it like, another name for TOAA, or, like something totally different and opposite? Have they, like, met? Avengerlogan2121 01:40, December 17, 2011 (UTC)

If you don't mind, I will try to address your questions. Firstly, the Presence is essentially the Supreme Being and thus, the "One-Above-All" of DC Comics, while the Spectre is a kind of the Presence's avenging servant. The Tribunal in Marvel stands for largely passive justice, appearing only when there is a serious imbalance, while the Spectre stands for largely active justice, interfering with things as relatively trivial as petty robbery.

Certainly, in The Adventures of the X-Men #12, predating the current Marvel Universe, the Tribunal has engaged in "transdimensional consultation with his hooded spectral ally". [1] And in another series, the Spectre and the Tribunal join forces to counter the threat posed by the Brothers, presumably with their respective masters' consent: [2] I hope this helps clear things up a little... Halowars22 03:29, December 17, 2011 (UTC)
I saw this picture. It says One-Above-All is possibly beyond Marvel Multiverse. Maybe he created some other Multiverses too but it doesn't mean he created ALL things in the Omniverse. I think this page should still be this way because Handbook says "possibly beyond".--Primestar3 (talk) 11:20, March 29, 2015 (UTC)
It was me who uploaded that image, about an hour ago, actually. Anyway, I also agree, there is no need whatsoever to move this article, for all intents and purposes it should remain as Multiverse. Halowars22 (talk) 11:42, March 29, 2015 (UTC)

Protege

Once, I remember reading several older issues, something about Protectors of the Galaxy...and I think the One Above All played SOME role in it as well...it might even have been the first time for tribunal's master to be mentioned openly by name, even. But can anyone have the issue and can confirm, or was the One Above All mentioned only like, the Celestial one? whoever answers, thanks a lot... Myanmao 23:36, December 19, 2011 (UTC)

To help clear the confusion a little bit: The One-Above-All - the Supreme Being - did indeed play a role in a certain Guardians of the Galaxy storyline. The One Above All, the chief Celestial, as far as I can remember did not even appear, though another Celestial, called Scathan, did, and helped resolve the cosmic crisis eventually. A being with a unique and immensely potent ability was, I believe, threatening to usurp the cosmic hierarchy, and even tried to claim the ultimate power of the One-Above-All, but as a single Celestial managed to blind and overpower him in the span of seconds, it would seem that he did not exactly succeed in such grand ambitions... Halowars22 01:09, December 20, 2011 (UTC)


Easter Egg soiler

I have been bugged so much about the design they made with because when you think of the all knowing god of Marvel multiverse, who gets in your head? God? no, Stan Lee but why does the One-Above-All look like a biker? --RiderJones 04:19, May 1, 2012 (UTC)

which means that attribute, Omniversal, is that he is one with all the Omniverse, it is merged with the Omniverse.

Keep it Separate

I would say this page needs to be separate from the Yahweh article. There is nothing to indicate Yahweh is the same as the One-Above-All. If anything, the fact it needed Ghost Rider to save Heaven from Zadikel is proof it is not all-powerful. What is there to indicate it is anything but a reclusive skyfather? Other stories have indicated One-Above-All is a stand in for the writers, Jack Kirby, or something else all together. Zeus and Odin have many times claimed to be all-powerful, all-knowing, or the highest rules. It is fairly standard with gods so I don't see how claims of that would indicated Yahweh in the context of Marvel is higher than other skyfathers. Seekquaze1 (talk) 19:51, February 21, 2013 (UTC)

I strongly agree. There is no else clear and conclusive evidence either way, outside of random speculation. The Official Handbooks themselves are open-ended and vague on the connections between God/Yahweh and the One-Above-All. It is a interesting topic to ponder, however. It's been nearly a month now, and as no one else has offered their input on this discussion page, I am removing the article's merge tag. Halowars22 (talk) 00:10, March 5, 2013 (UTC)

HOTU

- In The End, the HOTU gives Thanos more power than LT and it's implied (maybe even outright stated) that HOTU is a conscious entity (trying to get rid of the power). Thus, shouldn't it follow that HOTU is the OAA and that instance should be included on this page? --Stevehim (talk) 00:42, May 8, 2015 (UTC)

No. For one thing, that is wild speculation. For another, Thanos only absorbed a single universe, and was unable to affect the multiverse regarding making death permanent again, so it was likely just an M-body of the 16-dimensional Tribunal, much like when it was "unable" to defeat alternative versions of Korvac or Galactus. And for the third, Tom Brevoort, who is the Executive Editor that decides these things for Marvel, has repeatedly stated that the entire story is not a part of continuity. Antvasima (talk) 05:47, May 8, 2015 (UTC)

-- I know it's not part of main continuity, but don't we have sections for the alternate ones? I don't think it's wild speculation, though I do concede the possibility of it not being a full LT. --Stevehim (talk) 20:53, May 8, 2015 (UTC)

Tom Brevoort has stated that the story was not intended to be a part of continuity at all. Also, it is not stated anywhere that the Heart is the One Above All, and the Living Tribunal is just a 16-dimensional entity, that has referred to beings higher than itself. Even if the Heart had defeated the true entity, which it most likely did not, it would still not be anywhere near impressive enough to proclaim it equal to the OAA. Antvasima (talk) 05:03, May 9, 2015 (UTC)
I don't think Tom said that the story was non-canon, just not in continuity with the main universe.
Just for my information, when has the LT referred to a being higher than itself aside from the OOA, in current retconned canon? I understand that there are beings that have defeated the LT's M-bodies, but afaik, the only being in Marvel canon more powerful than the LT itself is the OAA. I didn't know Brevoort said it was completely non-canon (though I see that now). --Stevehim (talk) 05:37, May 9, 2015 (UTC)
It referred to beings higher than itself in "Thanos: The Infinity Revelation", and was also exceeded by the Beyonders. In addition, its' highest known showing was when it appeared in 16-dimensional space (think our 11-dimensional multiverse × infinity raised to the power of 5), which isn't all that impressive compared with fictions such as Lovecraft, the Dark Tower, Demonbane, Umineko, and similar, that have infinite-dimensional entities. Antvasima (talk) 12:33, May 9, 2015 (UTC)

"Nope. By definition, any THE END story is set outside of continuity. And at the end of MARVEL: THE END, Death was made absolute again, something that clearly didn’t happen in the regular MU."

Yeah, REGULAR MU. Zakor1138 (talk) 05:26, May 9, 2015 (UTC)
I asked Tom about this myself to get a confirmation, and he clearly seemed to state that all "Marvel: The End" stories are not a part of continuity: "I’m sorry, but MARVEL: THE END still isn’t canon. It’s a THE END story, it’s non-canonical right in the title." "The intention was that MARVEL: THE END was a THE END project, just the same as all of the other THE END projects, and with just as much relevance to the mainstream Marvel Universe."
Meaning: Completely outside of continuity, with no relevance whatsoever, and not canon at all, not just non-canon for everybody except the Living Tribunal. The "Marvel Universe" is generally used as a term for the Marvel franchise as a whole, multiverse included. [3][4][5] Antvasima (talk) 12:33, May 9, 2015 (UTC)
Already read those. Out of continuity has been used to refer to non-mainstream universe before. Also, if The End stories aren't canon, why are they given reality numbers? Again, seems more like he's referring to the main continuity, not just in Marvel in general. Zakor1138 (talk) 05:27, May 10, 2015 (UTC)
Tom's decisions by far trumph any Marvel interns that write the handbooks. If he says that they are not canon, then they are not. Antvasima (talk) 04:17, May 11, 2015 (UTC)
Well, that doesn't paint Tom a bright picture. We at Marvel will pay you to write handbooks, but will ignore you if I decide that it's non-canon. Regardless, this isn't how the wiki works, and if we did as everything the high ranking executive at Marvel said, Marville would be considered the true origin of life on Earth. Zakor1138 (talk) 04:45, May 11, 2015 (UTC)
The point is that Tom stated that all "Marvel: The End" series were always intended to be non-canon. The interns likely made a mistake in trying to incorporate them anyway, which slipped under the radar. Antvasima (talk) 18:13, May 11, 2015 (UTC)

The use of terms like "non-canon" seems indeed to be frequent to describe things that are outside 616 continuity. But if the LT is affected by a "non-canon" reality, maybe we should create an exception (as we do for Mojo). We can see it this way: The reality of Marvel the End is somehow "outside the Marvel Multiverse" (the referential of canonicity for the LT), possibly (not even a speculation, just a way to picture the situation) in the Marvel Megaverse (mentioned somewhere in an alternate realities handbook), which includes the Marvel Multiverse (continuity in large meaning) (and who includes himself 616, the continuity in strict meaning), and other realities still Marvel but apart from the Multiverse. Undoniel (talk) 06:47, May 11, 2015 (UTC)

I think that we should probably think of "The End" stories more as just self-contained fictions, and not part of any continuity at all, whether multiversal, or megaversal. Just as stories that are not part of canon. Antvasima (talk) 18:13, May 11, 2015 (UTC)
In an infinite Omniverse, that is impossible. Zakor1138 (talk) 18:20, May 11, 2015 (UTC)
"Omniverse" is a nonsense term, as it mixes fiction with reality. All stories are just stories. There is no real connecting superstructure between different franchises, that are just drawings on a paper, much less with reality, unless you count the collective unconscious.
I know that some circles almost religiously adhere to the "omniverse" term, but at the end of the day, all fictions are just imaginary flights of fancy, and self-contained unless explicitly stated to be connected by the copyright holders. Marvel's highest editorial officially consider all "The End" stories as completely non-canon and imaginary, without any connection toregular continuity, and that is really all that needs to be said about the issue. No rationalisation is necessary. Antvasima (talk) 18:55, May 11, 2015 (UTC)
Would you want to remove all The End realities? Seriously, what do you want the wiki to do? Also, do you want to remove the real world reality while you're at it? What exactly do you want? Zakor1138 (talk) 19:01, May 11, 2015 (UTC)
Also, what are you implying? That I believe fictional stories actually exist in some other dimension? Don't assume anything about someone you don't personally know. I'm not an idiot. Zakor1138 (talk) 19:05, May 11, 2015 (UTC)
I am not saying that you personally believe it. I am saying that I have heard others say that all fiction happens in parallel realities to ours somewhere in "the omniverse", and given the whole mishmash of fiction and reality of the term, along with that other sources define it differently, I find the term annoying, inconsistent, and pointless.
As for what I want regarding The End stories? I don't know. Possibly just rate them as "Out of Continuity" as Tom Brevoort wishes, but that is up to the local administrators to decide. Antvasima (talk) 20:00, May 11, 2015 (UTC)
Just as an aside, the wiki does reference 'The End' stories as 'alternate realities' in places (eg - see Banner 616's Powers-->Decelerated Aging) Stevehim (talk) 08:32, May 28, 2015‎
@Antvasima, so there are people who believe fiction are happening in other dimensions? Wow weird.--Primestar3 (talk) 23:28, June 5, 2015 (UTC)
Well, in other realities. "Dimensions" means height, length, width, time, etcetera. Antvasima (talk) 05:38, June 6, 2015 (UTC)
Yeah but, you know what I mean.--Primestar3 (talk) 13:54, June 7, 2015 (UTC)

Beyonders and the One-Above-All

Has anyone even questioned the Beyonders experiment? They leveled the playing field by simultaneously killing off cosmic beings in multiple universes like Eternity, Infinity, Celestials, Lord Chaos and Master Order, and LT. But they stopped after that. LT wasn't the final being they needed to face. I don't think the OAA would allow his avatar to be destroyed without there being any consequences. There's no way the multiverse would decay since the OAA is still alive. Why didn't the Beyonders try to take him on. He is what holds the Marvel Multiverse together. Many questions and even though the Beyonders say they are Infinite, they are not strong enough to defeat OAA. Guess maybe Hickman and Brevoort didn't want to involve a character that powerful in the TIME RUNS OUT storyline too much of a headache. --Gijimu (talk) 08:03, May 11, 2015 (UTC)

Tom Brevoort has said in his blog, that the coming issues of Loki will reveal where the OAA fits into all of this. As for the multiverse, the Living Tribunal was recently revealed as its embodiment. Currently what remains seems to be the rotting corpse of it, with some bacteria still around. Antvasima (talk) 18:17, May 11, 2015 (UTC)
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.

Fandom may earn an affiliate commission on sales made from links on this page.

Stream the best stories.

Fandom may earn an affiliate commission on sales made from links on this page.

Get Disney+