I typed up a whole post tackling the opposition's argument line by line but then I decided not to send it- it is solely to the benefit of what is just a thoroughly unfounded argument to legitimize it by actually debating the specifics of it. I am instead going to take a step back and address the forest instead of the trees - because this just simply does not work at a fundamental level. In doing so I will also provide a summary so that people reading the post may understand more easily what this is.
To give a bit of background, Reclusa is a villain who hates bonds and relationships and enjoys driving people apart. Across many worlds in the past he has forcefully put entire worlds' inhabitants into personal dream worlds until they all died. It must be kept in mind before we proceed that Reclusa is an
extremely childish and impulsive character prone to throwing tantrums and often sees his actions as just playing in the way a child would with toys.
The core argument of the OP is that Reclusa is seemingly said to destroy the "worlds" he takes over until nothing is left, after doing his whole dream thing.
I have already explained pretty thoroughly how the scene used as evidence directly debunks that interpretation when looked at with proper context. I think my argument there is concise enough that there isn't really a point in copy/pasting it here, but in conclusion Reclusa is clearly referring to the death of all the inhabitants, not the destruction of the planet or universe.
Of course the debate has gone on since then, and I find the arguments that have been made by Galactidot to not be substantial at all. They are effectively subjective interpretations based on small bits of circumstantial evidence rather than clear proof that Reclusa is indeed referring to the destruction of universes. They are the following:
- The world and the people of the world are referred to separately by Reclusa when he speaks of his plans.
- As addressed before this is clearly just a metonymy. Reclusa's whole motivation is that he hates when people are together, and that he wants to prevent it and force everyone to be isolated until they die. There is no reason that he would care to destroy an uninhabited world. Any statement that is interpreted to mean the opposite is never really directly saying so, it is just describing Reclusa's pre-existing M.O. in an ambiguous way.
- Simply killing all inhabitants of the world will not preclude the possibility of life coming into existence again in the future.
- True but this has never been stated to be something Reclusa cares to prevent. Would it make sense for this character? Maybe, but that isn't enough to assume he would do it. No character in fiction is perfectly pragmatic and 100% consistent in their actions, let alone such an over the top childish and whimsical villain, and no writer should be expected to perfectly consider every ramification of what they put to text. This is also without even considering that even if he wanted to do that Reclusa might just be unable to, given that we currently regard him to be a High 6-A character with no ability to unleash universal destruction.
- Reclusa states that he will "play" with the world alone, which is interpreted to mean that he will continue to do stuff after everyone is dead. Assumedly, that is destroying the entire thing.
- As Galactidot themselves admit, Reclusa is saying that he will play with the world forever - which directly contradicts the idea that he will be destroying it in its entirety. So even on its own the statement is either unreliable or straight-up debunks OP's claim. But in fact, Reclusa straight-up says that, to him, a world where everyone is trapped in his dream flowers as a world that he is alone in. I refer to the same quote as before: "And with everyone off in their own little worlds, MY world will be nice and quiet!" - So the assumption here is just wrong.
It's possible that after reading this summary you might be of the impression that some or even all of these points are arguable rather than flat-out wrong. This might be true - I admit there isn't a 100% iron solid conclusion that can be drawn regarding these points of contention. However, I remind you that it is
all based on interpretation and conjecture. VS Battles Wiki requires fact, or at least very clear implication, to put something on a profile. Even if we take everything OP says as uncontradicted, the argument ends up as something like "
Reclusa MIGHT be destroying the universes he takes over because he SEEMS to care about doing so and MIGHT want to do it". It's not very reliable. Now granted, there are other issues, like how "world" can just as easily refer to planets rather than universes and while it has been claimed that Reclusa seeks to destroy all life in the universes he affects this is also not really ever stated, although it is at least a more reasonable assumption. But the main problem, simply put, is that there's just no actual proof to back up the speculation.
I think this works okay as a summary and while I am sure a response to it will be posted I am content to try and tag a few staff members to hopefully get this checked.
