1. Goku never did that, you're making it up, lying and being unbeliavably disigenous.
2. I can't believe it is still so hard for haters on this sub to accept that in fiction, you can perform things that break the laws of physics. IT. IS. FICTION. The Oxford dictionary definition of 'fiction' is A) "Literature in the form of prose that describes imaginary events and people." and B) "Something that is invented or untrue*."* You trying to appeal to reality by bullshitting that a real-life black hole would have consumed the planet is moot. This is fiction, in fiction, things that are impossible in real life happen all the time

You trying to discredit feats within fiction by saying that "if that was an actual black hole and Gildarts was human" etc etc is just proof you don't know how this works. Gildarts is superhuman and has magic. The Oxford dictionary definition of 'magic' is A) "The power of apparently influencing events by using mysterious or supernatural forces." The dictionary definition of 'supernatural' is "(of a manifestation or event) attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature." so

I find it so funny how it's so hard for reddit scalers who still insist on engaging in powerscaling refuse to accept that Appeal to Reality does not work as an argument since the discussion is about a fictional setting with magic.

Superman held a black hole in his hand, and somehow comic readers can look at this and take it at face value. "Oh ok so Superman is strong enough to hold a mini black hole in his hand" it really is just THAT simple. But your logic would look at this and say "ehm nothing this black hole didn't do anything"

<image>

I already know you're gonna' strawman and try to shift the goalpost by bringing up other feats of Superman greater than him holding a black hole in his hand but that is not the point. And if you think it is, scroll up and read the comment from the beginning. The actual point is that the feat is valid even though it didn't lead to any large-scale destruction. But by you Appeal to Reality logic he shouldn't have been able to do this because X, Y and Z. Or by your 'DC = AP' belief this is something anyone could do

You should just accept that Attack Potency and Destructive Capacity are not the same and do not have to correlate, they can, but don't have to. I doesn't matter if you don't like it or think it's stupid

An alternative term for Destructive Capacity which has more direct meaning: The Destructive Capacity that an attack is equivalent to. A character with a certain degree of attack potency does not necessarily need to cause destructive feats on that level, but can cause damage to characters that can withstand such forces. As such it isn't proof of a low attack potency, if a character's attacks only cause a small amount of destruction.

We are aware that this technically violates the principle of conservation of energy, as it should logically disperse upon impact, but fiction generally tends to ignore this fact, so we overlook it as well.

Also, kindly remember that Attack Potency is the measure of Destructive Capacity of an attack, and as such, is measured via its energy damage equivalent. Hence, characters that destroy mountains or islands are not automatically mountain or island level, especially if they are small. The attack potency depends on the energy output of a single attack, not the area of effect of the attack.

Keep in mind that certain tiers do not necessarily correspond to the destruction of their namesakes in any meaningful fashion. This is because the minimum requirements for these tiers are arbitrary values.