Could Phil Seleski, Jack Boniface, and Master Darque Have Been Harbingers?

[ManofTheAtom]

What if Phil had the Harbinger ability to manipulate nuclear energy?

What if Jack Boniface and Master Darque had the Harbinger ability to manipulate necromantic energy?

[Juki]

I guess you could make the case that everyone in VH1 is a Harbinger. I don’t believe that the creators of the Valiant Universe intended for everyone with powers to be Harbingers…. but, that would make for a shocking twist at this late date.

Interesting thought MOTA.

[Chiclo]

Phil was one of few (2?) survivors of a previous Earth that he accidentally destroyed. I think someone brought up recently that that previous Earth did not have Harbingers, only the second Earth (time travel? different universe?) had harbingers.

Phil Seleski of the previous Earth did merge with his doppelganger from the new Earth and it is possible that the Seleski from the newer Earth was a harbinger but by that point, the Seleski of the previous Earth had already developed mighty and terrible powers, so would that really matter?

So, many of the lectures I have read on this board in the last few months pretty much hinge on the assumption that Phil Seleski from that previous Earth could not be a harbinger.

[Ryan]

Phil was one of few (2?) survivors of a previous Earth that he accidentally destroyed. I think someone brought up recently that that previous Earth did not have Harbingers, only the second Earth (time travel? different universe?) had harbingers.

Phil Seleski of the previous Earth did merge with his doppelganger from the new Earth and it is possible that the Seleski from the newer Earth was a harbinger but by that point, the Seleski of the previous Earth had already developed mighty and terrible powers, so would that really matter?

So, many of the lectures I have read on this board in the last few months pretty much hinge on the assumption that Phil Seleski from that previous Earth could not be a harbinger.

You think there's consistency to the Mota pulpit lectures? That's funny.

[Chiclo]

Phil was one of few (2?) survivors of a previous Earth that he accidentally destroyed. I think someone brought up recently that that previous Earth did not have Harbingers, only the second Earth (time travel? different universe?) had harbingers.

Phil Seleski of the previous Earth did merge with his doppelganger from the new Earth and it is possible that the Seleski from the newer Earth was a harbinger but by that point, the Seleski of the previous Earth had already developed mighty and terrible powers, so would that really matter?

So, many of the lectures I have read on this board in the last few months pretty much hinge on the assumption that Phil Seleski from that previous Earth could not be a harbinger.

You think there's consistency to the Mota pulpit lectures? That's funny.

He is consistent about several tentpoles to his philosophy about Valiant. On less important details he can be flexible. If one can join the argument to any of his tentpoles, he will almost certainly agree with your argument,

[ManofTheAtom]

I guess you could make the case that everyone in VH1 is a Harbinger. I don’t believe that the creators of the Valiant Universe intended for everyone with powers to be Harbingers…. but, that would make for a shocking twist at this late date.

Interesting thought MOTA.

Thanks.

[ManofTheAtom]

Phil was one of few (2?) survivors of a previous Earth that he accidentally destroyed. I think someone brought up recently that that previous Earth did not have Harbingers, only the second Earth (time travel? different universe?) had harbingers.

Phil Seleski of the previous Earth did merge with his doppelganger from the new Earth and it is possible that the Seleski from the newer Earth was a harbinger but by that point, the Seleski of the previous Earth had already developed mighty and terrible powers, so would that really matter?

So, many of the lectures I have read on this board in the last few months pretty much hinge on the assumption that Phil Seleski from that previous Earth could not be a harbinger.

Good point. What about Boniface and Darque, though?

[Ryan]

Phil was one of few (2?) survivors of a previous Earth that he accidentally destroyed. I think someone brought up recently that that previous Earth did not have Harbingers, only the second Earth (time travel? different universe?) had harbingers.

Phil Seleski of the previous Earth did merge with his doppelganger from the new Earth and it is possible that the Seleski from the newer Earth was a harbinger but by that point, the Seleski of the previous Earth had already developed mighty and terrible powers, so would that really matter?

So, many of the lectures I have read on this board in the last few months pretty much hinge on the assumption that Phil Seleski from that previous Earth could not be a harbinger.

You think there's consistency to the Mota pulpit lectures? That's funny.

He is consistent about several tentpoles to his philosophy about Valiant. On less important details he can be flexible. If one can join the argument to any of his tentpoles, he will almost certainly agree with your argument,

Lol. Nah. Give me one of his 'tentpoles' and I'll show you where he undercuts his theories with his own arguments.

[Chiclo]

Phil was one of few (2?) survivors of a previous Earth that he accidentally destroyed. I think someone brought up recently that that previous Earth did not have Harbingers, only the second Earth (time travel? different universe?) had harbingers.

Phil Seleski of the previous Earth did merge with his doppelganger from the new Earth and it is possible that the Seleski from the newer Earth was a harbinger but by that point, the Seleski of the previous Earth had already developed mighty and terrible powers, so would that really matter?

So, many of the lectures I have read on this board in the last few months pretty much hinge on the assumption that Phil Seleski from that previous Earth could not be a harbinger.

Good point. What about Boniface and Darque, though?

I do not see why not. To me, the idea of a harbinger origin seems like it would diminish both characters but a good writer could make it work well.

[Chiclo]

Phil was one of few (2?) survivors of a previous Earth that he accidentally destroyed. I think someone brought up recently that that previous Earth did not have Harbingers, only the second Earth (time travel? different universe?) had harbingers.

Phil Seleski of the previous Earth did merge with his doppelganger from the new Earth and it is possible that the Seleski from the newer Earth was a harbinger but by that point, the Seleski of the previous Earth had already developed mighty and terrible powers, so would that really matter?

So, many of the lectures I have read on this board in the last few months pretty much hinge on the assumption that Phil Seleski from that previous Earth could not be a harbinger.

You think there's consistency to the Mota pulpit lectures? That's funny.

He is consistent about several tentpoles to his philosophy about Valiant. On less important details he can be flexible. If one can join the argument to any of his tentpoles, he will almost certainly agree with your argument,

Lol. Nah. Give me one of his 'tentpoles' and I'll show you where he undercuts his theories with his own arguments.

Any occurrence that appears to have a magical explanation can be explained scientifically or technologically. MotA has been monomaniacally consistent in this belief.

I might have to get back to you on his other tentpoles. World outside your window? Cannot be multiverse?

[Ryan]

Any occurrence that appears to have a magical explanation can be explained scientifically or technologically. MotA has been monomaniacally consistent in this belief.

I might have to get back to you on his other tentpoles. World outside your window? Cannot be multiverse?

Yeah his behavior is consistent in that he rails about the same few topics over and over, and will eventually reduce any discussion into a false binary between one of his 'tentpole' railing points and whatever nuance was in the discussion will be ignored or steamrolled.

For example, no one is arguing for more 'magic' in comics. Almost all superhero comics explain their fantasy elements with scientific jargon. Fantasy - A person can fly. Explanation - They're an alien from a different sun. Or they can control gravitational fields, now it becomes sci-fi. X-men can have any possible power that can be dreamed up, but it's called a 'genetic mutation' so now its sci-fi. Etc. That's how superhero comics have always been, no one is saying otherwise.

If there's a point of discussion relevant to this board, its about the degree of plausibility between the different versions of Valiant. There's a lot of room for different opinions on the matter, but the degree of plausibility is not only determined by whether a fantasy element has a scientific jargon explanation or not. Most all things in superhero comics do. There are many more factors in what makes a superhero universe more or less realistic.

[ManofTheAtom]

Any occurrence that appears to have a magical explanation can be explained scientifically or technologically. MotA has been monomaniacally consistent in this belief.

I might have to get back to you on his other tentpoles. World outside your window? Cannot be multiverse?

Yeah his behavior is consistent in that he rails about the same few topics over and over, and will eventually reduce any discussion into a false binary between one of his 'tentpole' railing points and whatever nuance was in the discussion will be ignored or steamrolled.

For example, no one is arguing for more 'magic' in comics. Almost all superhero comics explain their fantasy elements with scientific jargon. Fantasy - A person can fly. Explanation - They're an alien from a different sun. Or they can control gravitational fields, now it becomes sci-fi. X-men can have any possible power that can be dreamed up, but it's called a 'genetic mutation' so now its sci-fi. Etc. That's how superhero comics have always been, no one is saying otherwise.

If there's a point of discussion relevant to this board, its about the degree of plausibility between the different versions of Valiant. There's a lot of room for different opinions on the matter, but the degree of plausibility is not only determined by whether a fantasy element has a scientific jargon explanation or not. Most all things in superhero comics do. There are many more factors in what makes a superhero universe more or less realistic.

Unless it involves pixie dust, flying is science fiction, not fantasy...

[Ryan]

Any occurrence that appears to have a magical explanation can be explained scientifically or technologically. MotA has been monomaniacally consistent in this belief.

I might have to get back to you on his other tentpoles. World outside your window? Cannot be multiverse?

Yeah his behavior is consistent in that he rails about the same few topics over and over, and will eventually reduce any discussion into a false binary between one of his 'tentpole' railing points and whatever nuance was in the discussion will be ignored or steamrolled.

For example, no one is arguing for more 'magic' in comics. Almost all superhero comics explain their fantasy elements with scientific jargon. Fantasy - A person can fly. Explanation - They're an alien from a different sun. Or they can control gravitational fields, now it becomes sci-fi. X-men can have any possible power that can be dreamed up, but it's called a 'genetic mutation' so now its sci-fi. Etc. That's how superhero comics have always been, no one is saying otherwise.

If there's a point of discussion relevant to this board, its about the degree of plausibility between the different versions of Valiant. There's a lot of room for different opinions on the matter, but the degree of plausibility is not only determined by whether a fantasy element has a scientific jargon explanation or not. Most all things in superhero comics do. There are many more factors in what makes a superhero universe more or less realistic.

Unless it involves pixie dust, flying is science fiction, not fantasy...

Lol. Case in point. A fantasy is something imaginative, or make-believe. A person flying with no mechanical means is make-believe, right? We'll switch to that term since you can't seem to handle using 'fantasy' as a way to describe something imaginative.

Also, why couldn't pixie dust be nano computers, or star dust from an ancient star that's actually a technology so advanced that it seems like magic to us?

[Chiclo]

Any occurrence that appears to have a magical explanation can be explained scientifically or technologically. MotA has been monomaniacally consistent in this belief.

I might have to get back to you on his other tentpoles. World outside your window? Cannot be multiverse?

Yeah his behavior is consistent in that he rails about the same few topics over and over, and will eventually reduce any discussion into a false binary between one of his 'tentpole' railing points and whatever nuance was in the discussion will be ignored or steamrolled.

For example, no one is arguing for more 'magic' in comics. Almost all superhero comics explain their fantasy elements with scientific jargon. Fantasy - A person can fly. Explanation - They're an alien from a different sun. Or they can control gravitational fields, now it becomes sci-fi. X-men can have any possible power that can be dreamed up, but it's called a 'genetic mutation' so now its sci-fi. Etc. That's how superhero comics have always been, no one is saying otherwise.

If there's a point of discussion relevant to this board, its about the degree of plausibility between the different versions of Valiant. There's a lot of room for different opinions on the matter, but the degree of plausibility is not only determined by whether a fantasy element has a scientific jargon explanation or not. Most all things in superhero comics do. There are many more factors in what makes a superhero universe more or less realistic.

Unless it involves pixie dust, flying is science fiction, not fantasy...

Lol. Case in point. A fantasy is something imaginative, or make-believe. A person flying with no mechanical means is make-believe, right? We'll switch to that term since you can't seem to handle using 'fantasy' as a way to describe something imaginative.

Also, why couldn't pixie dust be nano computers, or star dust from an ancient star that's actually a technology so advanced that it seems like magic to us?

You mean like the pixie dust in Bloodshot’s blood? The Pixie Dust of Heroes?

[Ryan]

You mean like the pixie dust in Bloodshot’s blood? The Pixie Dust of Heroes?

[Ryan]

What if Phil had the Harbinger ability to manipulate nuclear energy?

What if Jack Boniface and Master Darque had the Harbinger ability to manipulate necromantic energy?

Back on topic, I think it depends on how a Harbinger was defined? I don't think it was ever explicitly defined in the comics, right?

I always assumed it was very similar to Marvel's mutants. They were born with this innate power (or mutation) that usually had to be activated by either an Omega or a traumatic event.

I think since Phil's powers come from an event, he wouldn't be a Harbinger. Unless you established that the nuclear meltdown event was just something triggered his innate ability to manipulate nuclear energy.

Same with Shadowman, it could be a matter of interpretation. If you interpret Lydia's bite as not giving him powers, but triggering his innate Harbinger ability, that seems like it could work.

Darque seems like a Harbinger. Same with the Geomancers.

[ManofTheAtom]

Any occurrence that appears to have a magical explanation can be explained scientifically or technologically. MotA has been monomaniacally consistent in this belief.

I might have to get back to you on his other tentpoles. World outside your window? Cannot be multiverse?

Yeah his behavior is consistent in that he rails about the same few topics over and over, and will eventually reduce any discussion into a false binary between one of his 'tentpole' railing points and whatever nuance was in the discussion will be ignored or steamrolled.

For example, no one is arguing for more 'magic' in comics. Almost all superhero comics explain their fantasy elements with scientific jargon. Fantasy - A person can fly. Explanation - They're an alien from a different sun. Or they can control gravitational fields, now it becomes sci-fi. X-men can have any possible power that can be dreamed up, but it's called a 'genetic mutation' so now its sci-fi. Etc. That's how superhero comics have always been, no one is saying otherwise.

If there's a point of discussion relevant to this board, its about the degree of plausibility between the different versions of Valiant. There's a lot of room for different opinions on the matter, but the degree of plausibility is not only determined by whether a fantasy element has a scientific jargon explanation or not. Most all things in superhero comics do. There are many more factors in what makes a superhero universe more or less realistic.

Unless it involves pixie dust, flying is science fiction, not fantasy...

Lol. Case in point. A fantasy is something imaginative, or make-believe. A person flying with no mechanical means is make-believe, right? We'll switch to that term since you can't seem to handle using 'fantasy' as a way to describe something imaginative.

Also, why couldn't pixie dust be nano computers, or star dust from an ancient star that's actually a technology so advanced that it seems like magic to us?

Fiction and fantasy are not the same.

Fantasy is a genre. Horror is fiction, it does not make it fantasy.

[Ryan]

Fiction and fantasy are not the same.

Fantasy is a genre. Horror is fiction, it does not make it fantasy.

You know that words can have more than one meaning, right?

Screenshot 2025-01-13 221636.png

Definition #9 is the one you think I'm using, but just to clear it up, when I use the word fantasy I'm not referring to the genre of fiction. I'm referring to imaginative or non-realistic aka fantastical elements in a story. Like people who can fly or shoot fire from their hands or read minds. These are imaginative (fantastic) elements in a fictional story. How they're explained in the story might determine which genre the story gets shelved in at the bookstore.

However even without any scientific explanations, most superhero fiction gets shelved in sci-fi due to the modern setting. Fantasy genre is mostly always set in a mythological past era or some other kind of fantastic, non-modern setting.

Now that that's understood we can get back to having good discussions

[magnusr]

What if Phil had the Harbinger ability to manipulate nuclear energy?

What if Jack Boniface and Master Darque had the Harbinger ability to manipulate necromantic energy?

I would find it boring if Harbinger abilities explain all powers. Let there be some variation. How about Fred Bender? Wasn't he supposed to have been just anybody who was shown how to tap into powers?

/Magnus

[ManofTheAtom]

Fiction and fantasy are not the same.

Fantasy is a genre. Horror is fiction, it does not make it fantasy.

You know that words can have more than one meaning, right?

Definition #9 is the one you think I'm using, but just to clear it up, when I use the word fantasy I'm not referring to the genre of fiction. I'm referring to imaginative or non-realistic aka fantastical elements in a story. Like people who can fly or shoot fire from their hands or read minds. These are imaginative (fantastic) elements in a fictional story. How they're explained in the story might determine which genre the story gets shelved in at the bookstore.

However even without any scientific explanations, most superhero fiction gets shelved in sci-fi due to the modern setting. Fantasy genre is mostly always set in a mythological past era or some other kind of fantastic, non-modern setting.

Now that that's understood we can get back to having good discussions

In the context of the conversation, "fantasy" and "science fiction" are used in reference to the genre.

You can very easily stop using fantasy -- unless you want to discuss Lord of the Rings or Magic the Gathering -- and just use fiction.

[ManofTheAtom]

What if Phil had the Harbinger ability to manipulate nuclear energy?

What if Jack Boniface and Master Darque had the Harbinger ability to manipulate necromantic energy?

I would find it boring if Harbinger abilities explain all powers. Let there be some variation. How about Fred Bender? Wasn't he supposed to have been just anybody who was shown how to tap into powers?

/Magnus

It would be boring, but it could further explain "magic".

I forget how Bender got his powers. I've only read those issues once or twice, heh.

[Chiclo]

Fiction and fantasy are not the same.

Fantasy is a genre. Horror is fiction, it does not make it fantasy.

You know that words can have more than one meaning, right?

Definition #9 is the one you think I'm using, but just to clear it up, when I use the word fantasy I'm not referring to the genre of fiction. I'm referring to imaginative or non-realistic aka fantastical elements in a story. Like people who can fly or shoot fire from their hands or read minds. These are imaginative (fantastic) elements in a fictional story. How they're explained in the story might determine which genre the story gets shelved in at the bookstore.

However even without any scientific explanations, most superhero fiction gets shelved in sci-fi due to the modern setting. Fantasy genre is mostly always set in a mythological past era or some other kind of fantastic, non-modern setting.

Now that that's understood we can get back to having good discussions

In the context of the conversation, "fantasy" and "science fiction" are used in reference to the genre.

You can very easily stop using fantasy -- unless you want to discuss Lord of the Rings or Magic the Gathering -- and just use fiction.

As genres, sci-fi and fantasy are linked. Or maybe, it might be better to say, that sci-fi is very dependent on fantasy. Fantasy can exist without sci-fi but most (but not all) sci-fi is not entirely stripped of fantasy elements.

Magneto is a mutant. That is a sci-fi answer. But until you come up with some way to explain how his body can generate and control magnetic fields, it is a fantasy element within that sci-fi. Saying the X-gene is the same as saying pixie dust. If you can strip the fantasy out of the sci-fi, the best example of what you get would be something like 2001, where the computer is a more human character than the people in the story.

You do offer sci-fi explanations for things - advanced technology time travelled from the future - but when you get to something like "he fell into a malfunctioning nuclear reactor [which had anti-matter for some reason?] and fell out the other end with god-like powers" there is no way to divorce the fantasy elements from that sci-fi. It is the same as falling into a vat of pixie dust!

...and nanites. There is a lot of "god of the gaps" going on there.

[ManofTheAtom]

Fiction and fantasy are not the same.

Fantasy is a genre. Horror is fiction, it does not make it fantasy.

You know that words can have more than one meaning, right?

Definition #9 is the one you think I'm using, but just to clear it up, when I use the word fantasy I'm not referring to the genre of fiction. I'm referring to imaginative or non-realistic aka fantastical elements in a story. Like people who can fly or shoot fire from their hands or read minds. These are imaginative (fantastic) elements in a fictional story. How they're explained in the story might determine which genre the story gets shelved in at the bookstore.

However even without any scientific explanations, most superhero fiction gets shelved in sci-fi due to the modern setting. Fantasy genre is mostly always set in a mythological past era or some other kind of fantastic, non-modern setting.

Now that that's understood we can get back to having good discussions

In the context of the conversation, "fantasy" and "science fiction" are used in reference to the genre.

You can very easily stop using fantasy -- unless you want to discuss Lord of the Rings or Magic the Gathering -- and just use fiction.

As genres, sci-fi and fantasy are linked. Or maybe, it might be better to say, that sci-fi is very dependent on fantasy. Fantasy can exist without sci-fi but most (but not all) sci-fi is not entirely stripped of fantasy elements.

Magneto is a mutant. That is a sci-fi answer. But until you come up with some way to explain how his body can generate and control magnetic fields, it is a fantasy element within that sci-fi. Saying the X-gene is the same as saying pixie dust. If you can strip the fantasy out of the sci-fi, the best example of what you get would be something like 2001, where the computer is a more human character than the people in the story.

You do offer sci-fi explanations for things - advanced technology time travelled from the future - but when you get to something like "he fell into a malfunctioning nuclear reactor [which had anti-matter for some reason?] and fell out the other end with god-like powers" there is no way to divorce the fantasy elements from that sci-fi. It is the same as falling into a vat of pixie dust!

...and nanites. There is a lot of "god of the gaps" going on there.

Fantasy and science fiction are not the same genre. There is a third genre called science fantasy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_fantasy

During the Golden Age of Science Fiction, science fantasy stories were seen in sharp contrast to the terse, scientifically plausible material that came to dominate mainstream science fiction, typified by the magazine Astounding Science Fiction. Although science fantasy stories at that time were often relegated to the status of children's entertainment, their freedom of imagination and romance proved to be an early major influence on the "New Wave" writers of the 1960s, who became exasperated by the limitations of "Hard Science Fiction".[5]

[Ryan]

In the context of the conversation, "fantasy" and "science fiction" are used in reference to the genre.

You can very easily stop using fantasy -- unless you want to discuss Lord of the Rings or Magic the Gathering -- and just use fiction.

Nah dude, no one is talking about LotR or Magic the Gathering. Fantasy as a genre is tied to a specific type of setting, but it can also have extremely realistic and scientifically explained 'magic' systems.

The context of the conversation is superhero universes, which have a modern or near-future setting, and so are always in the sci-fi genre. We are all well aware of that, no one is debating that. Fiction is the fact that Faith Herbert or Pete Stanchek exist. Fantastical elements within the fiction are that Faith can fly and Pete can read minds.

[Ryan]

Fantasy and science fiction are not the same genre. There is a third genre called science fantasy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_fantasy

Stop focusing on genre, no one is debating what genre superhero stories are in. You're the only one caught up in it. No one is saying that Valiant or Marvel or DC belong in the Fantasy genre.

The debate is about the 'fantastical elements' or if you prefer 'paranormal' or 'supernatural' elements of superhero stories.