Natasha's Full Analysis in Depth Regarding Hit vs Goku Black (anime versions only)

[Natasha Romanoff]

I believe we were talking about what occurred immediately after Goku overpowered Merged Zamasu with his Kamehameha. Zamasu couldn't regenerate properly from the attack because Black was also a part of him. The reason he needed to regenerate was because of Goku's attack.

Yes, only thing Goku managed to do was making him get angry.

Gowasu states that if the balance between soul and body is becoming unstable, their chance may lie on hit him with greater power, either three of the saiyans managing to do anything isn't the thought on anyone's mind, at that point they decided to bet on Vegetto.

Spoiler

Or at least can also be inferred that the damage (if there was one) was insignificant enough for him to not feel in need to regenerate, unlike:

Spoiler

Ssj Blue Goku (End of Zamasu saga) < Ssj Rosé Goku Black (Episode 64)

 

[Goku9001]

Yes, only thing Goku managed to do was making him get angry.

Gowasu states that if the balance between soul and body is becoming unstable, their chance may lie on hit him with greater power, either three of the saiyans managing to do anything isn't the thought on anyone's mind, at that point they decided to bet on Vegetto.

Spoiler

View attachment 1768

Or at least can also be inferred that the damage (if there was one) was insignificant enough for him to not feel in need to regenerate, unlike:

Spoiler

View attachment 1769

Ssj Blue Goku (End of Zamasu saga) < Ssj Rosé Goku Black (Episode 64)

The instability occurred as a result of his mortal side influencing his immortality. What was Zamasu's immortality used for?

 

[Natasha Romanoff]

The instability occurred as a result of his mortal side influencing his immortality. What was Zamasu's immortality used for?

To resist attacks that he usually could not? But, what does this is relevant to the discussion? Merged Zamasu is more vulnerable than Future Zamasu considering that one part of the fusion ain't immortal which provocates him not being able to use this on a similar level.

Do you have anything to add?

 

[Goku9001]

To resist attacks that he usually could not? But, what does this is relevant to the discussion? Merged Zamasu is more vulnerable than Future Zamasu considering that one part of the fusion ain't immortal which provocates him not being able to use this on a similar level.

Do you have anything to add?

Gowasu explicitly stated that his body was "falling apart" meaning that there was damage done hence why Zamasu needed his immortality to regenerate. He couldn't regenerate because his mortal side influenced his immortality. His immortality wouldn't have been necessary had he not received any damage. This is relevant because we are establishing that Blue Goku is actually stronger than Goku Black towards the end of the Zamasu Saga.

To add to that, Merged Zamasu is definitely more durable than Future Zamasu. At the very least, he's more resistant to attacks than Goku Black is by virtue of being significantly stronger than Goku Black.

 

[Natasha Romanoff]

Gowasu explicitly stated that his body was "falling apart" meaning that there was damage done hence why Zamasu needed his immortality to regenerate. He couldn't regenerate because his mortal side influenced his immortality. His immortality wouldn't have been necessary had he not received any damage. This is relevant because we are establishing that Blue Goku is actually stronger than Goku Black towards the end of the Zamasu Saga.

To add to that, Merged Zamasu is definitely more durable than Future Zamasu. At the very least, he's more resistant to attacks than Goku Black is by virtue of being significantly stronger than Goku Black.

Gowasu never mentions that Zamasu was falling apart, he just said that the balance between soul and body is becoming unstable. Zamasu never actually felt in need to regenerate, he just make that the light of justice hit him, but never gained any power from that.

Yes, Future Zamasu needed immortality and nobody is discussing against that.

Fused Zamasu is half immortal, while Future Zamasu is full immortal, on top of that, Zamasu is becoming more unstable due to either mental issues or inequality on his body.

Ssj Blue Goku end of Zamasu saga < Ssj Rosé Goku Black (Episode 64). Thank you.

 

[Goku9001]

Gowasu never mentions that Zamasu was falling apart, he just said that the balance between soul and body is becoming unstable. Zamasu never actually felt in need to regenerate, he just make that the light of justice hit him, but never gained any power from that.

Yes, Future Zamasu needed immortality and nobody is discussing against that.

Fused Zamasu is half immortal, while Future Zamasu is full immortal, on top of that, Zamasu is becoming more unstable due to either mental issues or inequality on his body.

Ssj Blue Goku end of Zamasu saga < Ssj Rosé Goku Black (Episode 64). Thank you.

Sorry, that's my mistake. Vegeta is the one who asks "Why isn't Zamasu's body healing" which does indicate that damage was being done. That was in response to Zamasu's body having been deformed rather than immediately healing as was the case with Future Zamasu. We notice a change in Zamasu's body the moment Goku's Kamehameha detonated on Zamasu's body. We later see Goku landing kicks that caused bits of Zamasu's skin to fly off of him. That's an indication that Goku's attacks were inflicting cosmetic damage at least.

Regardless of how you feel and whether or not Goku's KHH did any damage, this is what the narrator of Episode 66 says on the matter.

Episode: 66
Time: 1:45-2:18
Context: Narrator explains the Saiyans' battle against Zamasu.
Narrator: Zamasu and Black used the power of their Potara to fuse together... and became a god filled with light. Goku and friends fought bravely but Zamasu displayed overwhelming power. However... Vegeta and Trunks' Galick Gun... as well as Goku's Kamehameha began to bear down on Zamasu.

Merged Zamasu initially overwhelmed them but the Saiyans eventually grew powerful enough to push Merged Zamasu back. The evidence is that Goku and co. can pressure a being much stronger than Goku Black. You are going against the writers directly by suggesting that Goku was weaker than Goku Black despite exhibiting enough power to wear Merged Zamasu down.

 

[Natasha Romanoff]

Sorry, that's my mistake. Vegeta is the one who asks "Why isn't Zamasu's body healing" which does indicate that damage was being done. That was in response to Zamasu's body having been deformed rather than immediately healing as was the case with Future Zamasu. We notice a change in Zamasu's body the moment Goku's Kamehameha detonated on Zamasu's body. We later see Goku landing kicks that caused bits of Zamasu's skin to fly off of him. That's an indication that Goku's attacks were inflicting cosmetic damage at least.

Regardless of how you feel and whether or not Goku's KHH did any damage, this is what the narrator of Episode 66 says on the matter.

Episode: 66
Time: 1:45-2:18
Context: Narrator explains the Saiyans' battle against Zamasu.
Narrator: Zamasu and Black used the power of their Potara to fuse together... and became a god filled with light. Goku and friends fought bravely but Zamasu displayed overwhelming power. However... Vegeta and Trunks' Galick Gun... as well as Goku's Kamehameha began to bear down on Zamasu.

Merged Zamasu initially overwhelmed them but the Saiyans eventually grew powerful enough to push Merged Zamasu back. The evidence is that Goku and co. can pressure a being much stronger than Goku Black. You are going against the writers directly by suggesting that Goku was weaker than Goku Black despite exhibiting enough power to wear Merged Zamasu down.

It becomes apparent that in Vegeta's mind something strange was happening with Zamasu's body, which is unclear why that was even after seeing Ssj Blue Goku's Kamehameha against Merged Zamasu. Goku's kicks were able to do what they do, but Zamasu practically broken his leg and he just managed to get out of the torture while using Kaioken.

The narrator also make claims such as Beerus using his full power against Goku or Mai dying against Goku Black:

Spoiler

So it's make clear that the narrator just says what is believed to be by the spectator rather than giving more explanation of the events, it just follows the narrative as is portrayed to be. On top of that, this is before Gowasu explained the situation as a whole and why they decided to opt to Vegetto.

Zamasu's state of denial and his delusions of grandeur are what made Zamasu lose all of these beam struggles, if he didn't took Vegetto Blue that seriously initially, like what tell me that he was ever being serious against the three saiyans...? Oh, and no, I'm respecting the scriptor opinion of Goku Black being the strongest non fused/non God character as that wasn't even retconned to begin with.

 

[Goku9001]

It becomes apparent that in Vegeta's mind something strange was happening with Zamasu's body, which is unclear why that was even after seeing Ssj Blue Goku's Kamehameha against Merged Zamasu. Goku's kicks were able to do what they do, but Zamasu practically broken his leg and he just managed to get out of the torture while using Kaioken.

The narrator also make claims such as Beerus using his full power against Goku or Mai dying against Goku Black:

Spoiler

View attachment 1771View attachment 1772

So it's make clear that the narrator just says what is believed to be by the spectator rather than giving more explanation of the events, it just follows the narrative as is portrayed to be. On top of that, this is before Gowasu explained the situation as a whole and why they decided to opt to Vegetto.

Zamasu's state of denial and his delusions of grandeur are what made Zamasu lose all of these beam struggles, if he didn't took Vegetto Blue that seriously initially, like what tell me that he was ever being serious against the three saiyans...? Oh, and no, I'm respecting the scriptor opinion of Goku Black being the strongest non fused/non God character as that wasn't even retconned to begin with.

That would rely on the assumption that the writers are deliberately obfuscating information that they don't want to reveal to the reader which is something that you would have to prove. From what we are told, this is not the case. Zamasu's rage in response to the Saiyans overpowering him is what results in Zamasu's deformation which pushes the narrative forward by integrating Vegetto Blue. This is what we are shown which is then reinforced by the narrator.

That is your own subjective interpretation and that doesn't override what the writers explicitly tell us. You are blatantly suggesting that your own thoughts take precedence over the writers of the source material. That is deliberately arguing in bad faith where we can pick and choose what statements fit are narrative rather than going simply with what we are told and shown. We are led to believe that Zamasu was overpowered by the Galick Gun and Kamehameha. That is why the narrator contrasts the Saiyans at the beginning of the fight and toward the end of the fight. The dichotomy established here is the power dynamic between the Saiyans and Merged Zamasu which grew significantly smaller as the fight continued.

 

[Natasha Romanoff]

That would rely on the assumption that the writers are deliberately obfuscating information that they don't want to reveal to the reader which is something that you would have to prove. From what we are told, this is not the case. Zamasu's rage in response to the Saiyans overpowering him is what results in Zamasu's deformation which pushes the narrative forward by integrating Vegetto Blue. This is what we are shown which is then reinforced by the narrator.

At what point are you exactly refering to...? The main point of Vegeta's question? Yes, Vegeta's question serves to the purpose to give the audience an answer with the premise of resolve something which is in doubt, this also happened in DBZ a lot of times such as when we realized that all the damage that Piccolo gave to Freeza was healed when he went to his 3rd Form.

That is your own subjective interpretation and that doesn't override what the writers explicitly tell us. You are blatantly suggesting that your own thoughts take precedence over the writers of the source material. That is deliberately arguing in bad faith where we can pick and choose what statements fit are narrative rather than going simply with what we are told and shown. We are led to believe that Zamasu was overpowered by the Galick Gun and Kamehameha. That is why the narrator contrasts the Saiyans at the beginning of the fight and toward the end of the fight. The dichotomy established here is the power dynamic between the Saiyans and Merged Zamasu which grew significantly smaller as the fight continued.

Zamasu's character is portrayed to always be on denial and mistakes that relies on judgment mistakes, which is practically his character as a whole. The whole reason Vegetto was brought is to stand a chance of making something significative, which turned out to not necessarily be the case.

Hmmm no, I'm reinforcing my point on what the scriptor says, as well as how cases such as Mai dying against Goku Black or Beerus using his full power against Goku were contradicted later on and both come from the same narrator. But yeah, as well as Zamasu's case, both statements has value, but lost all type of validity when actual explanations or events take place.

 

[Goku9001]

@Natasha Romanoff

I wasn't making any reference to Vegeta's statement. I was taking the narrative as it is. Zamasu was nonchalant initially because he was a god that towered over the Saiyans. His reaction changed to anger and disgust the moment the Saiyans continued persevering and pushing back against him. The narrative explicitly acknowledges this. After Zamasu's halo was shattered, this invoked his rage and donned a power of light that required Vegetto Blue to fight him. The Saiyans pushing back is completely relevant to what we are explicitly told and shown.

What you are doing here is just ass-pulling a bunch of examples in an attempt to discredit my point without doing your own analysis to connect the dots together. Anyone can do that. One can argue that since Gowasu has been wrong before in the narrative that his statements talking about Merged Zamasu's body was completely wrong as the narrative made him out to be clueless about Zamasu. This is your logic and it's blatantly wrong. Gowasu's statement exists to convey to us what is happening to Zamasu to push the narrative forward. Likewise, the narrator's statements literally exist to recap certain events that occurred because that is pertinent to Zamasu's rage and what happens afterward.

 

[Natasha Romanoff]

@Natasha Romanoff

I wasn't making any reference to Vegeta's statement. I was taking the narrative as it is. Zamasu was nonchalant initially because he was a god that towered over the Saiyans. His reaction changed to anger and disgust the moment the Saiyans continued persevering and pushing back against him. The narrative explicitly acknowledges this. After Zamasu's halo was shattered, this invoked his rage and donned a power of light that required Vegetto Blue to fight him. The Saiyans pushing back is completely relevant to what we are explicitly told and shown.

I truly don't understand your modus operandi, neither your way of thinking... You are basically saying that comments given in the story > facts? Yes, Zamasu became more angry, but even then, he wouldn't be the first enemy that become angry after something insignificant happens, Freeza was angry after receiving the Kamehameha from Kaioken x20 Goku, even though, it didn't do much, Majin Buu was angry against Vegeta several times, despite his attacks making little to no damage to him (and visibly managing to do a lot) and also being much stronger than him. Zamasu's temper and how he conduct himself is what basically make Zamasu react in such a manner, him saying "I ain't losing" "no matter how many mortals gather together" "an insignificant transformation doesn't dare to challenge a god" (his comment towards Vegetto Blue), as his shock reactions just goes on to show that he is expecting much less of everyone than what we can even think.

Yet, nobody commented any power up, just that they need Vegetto Blue to go straight to the point, even though he didn't managed to do much.

What you are doing here is just ass-pulling a bunch of examples in an attempt to discredit my point without doing your own analysis to connect the dots together. Anyone can do that. One can argue that since Gowasu has been wrong before in the narrative that his statements talking about Merged Zamasu's body was completely wrong as the narrative made him out to be clueless about Zamasu. This is your logic and it's blatantly wrong. Gowasu's statement exists to convey to us what is happening to Zamasu to push the narrative forward. Likewise, the narrator's statements literally exist to recap certain events that occurred because that is pertinent to Zamasu's rage and what happens afterward.

No, the narrator can be as reliable or unreliable varying the situation, he just follow what is shown, even if it's wrong information, but his thoughts relies on what the audience can expect and nothing more, he isn't offering something new or something that what we can take benefit of; there are many others posible solutions to your case, but yer selecting the wrong one. Gowasu can be wrong or right varying the situation, facts shows it, not someone insisting of using him as a voice of reason.

 

[Goku9001]

@Natasha Romanoff

What I'm saying is that statements within the story that aligns with what we are shown mean that there is an intended message being conveyed. We are shown that Zamasu was being visibly overwhelmed and enraged by Vegeta & Trunks' Galick Gun combo as well as Goku's Kamehameha. We are told by the narrator, a literary device to recount the story, that Zamasu was overwhelmed by those attacks. What the writers explicitly tell us and what occurs on screen both convey the same thing. Therefore, the intended message was that Zamasu was overwhelmed by those attacks. As you said, Zamasu was nonchalant when the Saiyans were not a threat but was flustered once they posed a threat to his godhood.

The point of the Gowasu comparison is not that he can or cannot be wrong. Obviously, it was to claim that Gowasu's statements are meant to convey to the reader what happened to Zamasu. Just because he has been wrong does not discredit the purpose behind Gowasu's statement and as such, the reader is meant to heed his words regardless of how they subjectively feel about Gowasu. You are injecting your own personal feelings about the character without any regard of the intentions behind statements being made.

 

[Natasha Romanoff]

@Natasha Romanoff

What I'm saying is that statements within the story that aligns with what we are shown mean that there is an intended message being conveyed. We are shown that Zamasu was being visibly overwhelmed and enraged by Vegeta & Trunks' Galick Gun combo as well as Goku's Kamehameha. We are told by the narrator, a literary device to recount the story, that Zamasu was overwhelmed by those attacks. What the writers explicitly tell us and what occurs on screen both convey the same thing. Therefore, the intended message was that Zamasu was overwhelmed by those attacks. As you said, Zamasu was nonchalant when the Saiyans were not a threat but was flustered once they posed a threat to his godhood.

Yes, because he doesn't think big of them and was always thinking he is superior no matter what, him being angry towards Vegeta, Trunks or Goku is passable as he has a big ego and doesn't tolerate losing no matter what, that and his character relies pn exagerating things a whole lot. Yes, the narrator is there to explain what happened and I'm not denying he lost (but, yeah this is before Goku's Kamehameha overpowered Zamasu, so is a bit out of place for the narrator to say that). Zamasu was always carefree against anyone of there considering that he didn't even see Vegetto Blue that big of a threat initially.

The point of the Gowasu comparison is not that he can or cannot be wrong. Obviously, it was to claim that Gowasu's statements are meant to convey to the reader what happened to Zamasu. Just because he has been wrong does not discredit the purpose behind Gowasu's statement and as such, the reader is meant to heed his words regardless of how they subjectively feel about Gowasu. You are injecting your own personal feelings about the character without any regard of the intentions behind statements being made.

Which I'm not disagreeing with, Gowasu at this point is the one who conducts the plot and explains the different things happened on Zamasu's body. Of course, one thing doesn't correlate with another and we can't discard him as a whole, but know at what exent he can be reliable on this or not, at what point his premises are true or false, is what you fail on comprehending.

 

[Goku9001]

@Natasha Romanoff

So the narrator is a literary device used to convey how the writers want us to understand the story up until this point and that aligns with what we are explicitly shown. At this point, it seems you are projecting your own personal feelings as to why you know better than the writers.

 

[Natasha Romanoff]

@Natasha Romanoff

So the narrator is a literary device used to convey how the writers want us to understand the story up until this point and that aligns with what we are explicitly shown. At this point, it seems you are projecting your own personal feelings as to why you know better than the writers.

And that later explanations or facts can oppose to what the narrator says, the narrator had previously given us things that is portrayed to not be the case, so he can also transmit wrong information, is on us to analyze things properly, is not matter of believing to be better than the scriptors. Glad, you didn't adress anything else on what I say.

 

[Goku9001]

And that later explanations or facts can oppose to what the narrator says, the narrator had previously given us things that is portrayed to not be the case, so he can also transmit wrong information, is on us to analyze things properly, is not matter of believing to be better than the scriptors. Glad, you didn't adress anything else on what I say.

Which you have yet to prove. You just dance around the subject with arbitrary examples and fail to relate those instances to whatever we are discussing.

I'm not addressing everything because that just deviates from the discussion and doesn't really address the main overall point.

 

[Natasha Romanoff]

Which you have yet to prove. You just dance around the subject with arbitrary examples and fail to relate those instances to whatever we are discussing.

I'm not addressing everything because that just deviates from the discussion and doesn't really address the main overall point.

Prove what? The narrator isn't unfallible; I have given many examples on how he was proven wrong, Mai didn't die against Goku Black, neither Beerus ever used his full power against Goku, it's pretty much as clear as day that he is limited from what we have observed or have notion of.

We are discussing that Goku, Vegeta and Trunks overpowered Zamasu with their attacks, nobody denies that but you fail to realize it, as you fail to realize nearly everything. We have told that what the narrator is stating is ever before the Kamehameha against Merged Zamasu happened, so it's a bit out of place for him to decide that, and your premise is inconclusive. Your premises just need a lot more of things that may help your point.

I have responded already to your claims of me believing I know better than the scriptors, so in equality, you have to do the same with everything I say, but doesn't matter, you're not forced if you don't have the capacity to do so.

 

[Goku9001]

@Natasha Romanoff

Your examples merely prove that the narrator can obfuscate information that it doesn't want to reveal to the audience at that point in time. This is clearly not the case with the Saiyans vs. Zamasu and you have yet to prove why this is the case. This is part of any analysis. You don't just pull arbitrary examples, you have to relate ideas to each other which you have yet to do. Regardless, I would suggest you look back at Episode 66 because the narrator made that statement during the clash of Goku's Kamehameha with Merged Zamasu's attack.

 

[Natasha Romanoff]

@Natasha Romanoff

Your examples merely prove that the narrator can obfuscate information that it doesn't want to reveal to the audience at that point in time. This is clearly not the case with the Saiyans vs. Zamasu and you have yet to prove why this is the case. This is part of any analysis. You don't just pull arbitrary examples, you have to relate ideas to each other which you have yet to do. Regardless, I would suggest you look back at Episode 66 because the narrator made that statement during the clash of Goku's Kamehameha with Merged Zamasu's attack.

Or that the narrator simply conducts the audience for what is believed to be the case, not for what actually is. The narrator as you said:

Episode: 66
Time: 1:45-2:18
Context: Narrator explains the Saiyans' battle against Zamasu.
Narrator: Zamasu and Black used the power of their Potara to fuse together... and became a god filled with light. Goku and friends fought bravely but Zamasu displayed overwhelming power. However... Vegeta and Trunks' Galick Gun... as well as Goku's Kamehameha began to bear down on Zamasu.

Is tell us that Goku's Kamehameha is beginning to bear down on Zamasu, is not up to him to decide this as is still something that haven't happened. Yet the ideas someone can come up are varying on what you analyze on that specific situation, you are not ruled to think anything, specially when there are a miriad of factors surrounding the context of that specific scenes, as well as how Zamasu's personality played against him.

Well, yes, actually I concede you on that: my bad of not specifying that the outcome of Goku's Kamehameha against Merged Zamasu hadn't happened yet, instead of being before of that particular instance, which began on Episode 65.

 

[Goku9001]

@Natasha Romanoff

The narrator is recounting the events as we were shown in Episode 65 so that would be the writers' interpretation of what happened. You present a bunch of hypotheticals with nothing clarifying why the narrator was holding back information and elaborating why that was the intent. The burden of proof is on you here.