Board Thread:General Discussion/@comment-26173896-20150306005033/@comment-25615397-20160617114112

Subjectional wrote: Scorpio1999 wrote: ShadowMonarch212 wrote: This is the "irresistable force vs. unmovable object" dilemna. The question is a fallacy, as it assumes properties before they have been empirically demonstrated. Either the force will be resisted or the object will be moved, and the only way to know is to test.

If character A affects character B, then character B does not have Omnilock. If character A fails to affect character B, then character A does not have Omnipotence. In each example, the losing character is demoted to "Nigh-" status. Except the unmovable object can be moved by omnipotence. Done and done. Except it can't because the object is immune to omnipotence. Thus an infinite recursion paradox. Like Steve said, logically you would be correct, but omnipotence is illogical. Let me put it this way: Omnilock puts the user outside of everything, but omnipotence has complete control over not only absolutely everything, but also nothing, something, this thing, that thing, everything in between, nothing in between, and so on and so forth. That said. omnipotence has complete control over omnilock. Nuff said.