The idea that certain hax can counter other abilities simply because they are considered “lower in-verse” is (as per Strym's example), frankly, flawed and borders on NLF. If anything, that would only indicate that the higher hax in question is more potent within its own framework, not that the lower hax is suddenly getting overridens by another fiction who supposedly have the same higher hax in question.
If we follow that line of reasoning, then we would also have to grant abilities that are never explicitly defined or demonstrated in a given fiction, simply because another verse treats similar mechanics as weaker or counterable. That approach is inconsistent and undermines proper scaling standards.
Don't get me wrong, though. I do want Bill to win, just... not with that kind of reasoning.