People treat ratings as if they were a zero sum game.
The OP did not debunk 2-A bill, all he did was conflate threat to the multiversal =/= being able to destroy the universe.
I would argue for consistency that Bill is Low 2-C, but I will indulge this idea.
Since the GF Multiverse is infinite, and bill is a 'threat' to it.
Then there is only three rational conclusions.
1. Bill takes an infinite number of time to destroy them all.
2. Bill has infinite/immesurable speed and while he might be Low 2-C, he can do so eventually, but in a finite period of time.
3. Bill is 2-A because of multiversal destruction.
Or 4. Bill being a threat to the multiverse is just a general statement meaning that any universe could be on Bill's radar to target.
Using the visual evidence from the show of a quasar also is a red herring. No one cares that a quasar exploded. Even in your own example, you said this was evidence of it being Low 2-C, but destruction of a quasar is 4-B/4-A.
Which is ridiculous.
It's not just the quasar. You also see dots in the background which indicates distant galaxies, so Time Baby referring to the fabric of existence is Low 2-C.
This isnt a zero sum game we are playing, and considering we have two, 2-A statements, one from the book and the show itself, then at the very best, it means bills tier is 'At least Low 2-C, possibly 2-A'.
Nothing more or less.
Lets actually look at what the wiki says on the issue and not examples from other verses
Possibly
Should be used to list a hypothetical statistic for a character, but inconclusive due to lack of feats or viable power-scaling. Probability of said hypothetical statistic should also be indeterminate.
Likely
Should be used to list a hypothetical statistic for a character, but inconclusive due to lack of feats or viable power-scaling. Probability of said hypothetical statistic should be favourable.
Using this as a metric.
Does Bill not have the feats for 2-A? Yes, I will concede that.
Does Bill not have viable power scaling for 2-A? No, we have the book and the show statement. One is a hypothetical and the other, which according to you when used 'context', can be Low 2-C or 2-A. It is literally inconclusive.
It implies Low 2-C, but the book implies 2-A?
So do we dismiss the book just cuz it doesn't fit the narrative? No, we look at it as a secondary canon.
No one is dismissing the book. The argument being made is that being described as a threat to something by itself isn't enough to warrant a tier rating.
I disagree with the downgrades and I agree with Kep + Ultima. Plus, Kep and Ultima both made the point that if Bill was a threat to the multiverse., it makes more sense that the statement would 2-A, not Low 2-C, since otherwise he wouldn't be much of a threat if he blasted them one universe at a time for an infinite number of time or assuming that bill had immeasurable speed, which he has no feats for.
This is only going by the highest possible interpretation. Bill can still be a general threat to the multiverse if he can travel to any universe he wants to, since any one of those could be next on his radar. It doesn't mean he has to destroy the entire multiverse all at once, or at all.
2-A is more solid. Finally, Ford a supergenius who is capable of creating the rift to begin with also backs this up.
╠Âk╠Âe╠Âe╠Âp╠ ╠Âb╠Âi╠Âl╠Âl╠ ╠Â2╠Â-╠ÂA╠ ╠Âs╠Âo╠ ╠Ât╠Âh╠Âa╠Ât╠ ╠Âw╠Âa╠Ây╠ ╠Âs╠Âu╠Âp╠Âe╠Âr╠ ╠Âs╠Âo╠Ân╠Âi╠Âc╠ ╠Âs╠Âo╠Âl╠Âo╠Âe╠Âs╠ ╠Âg╠Âr╠Âa╠Âv╠Âi╠Ât╠Ây╠ ╠Âf╠Âa╠Âl╠Âl╠Âs╠Â
Use Likely/Possibly, I don't care. But the final verdict for this debunk is that it isnt a debunk and is probably the most popular misinterpretation of a show on this wiki at the moment.
