Medaka Box

Kumogawa's real ability is that he always loses, so it doesn't matter how overpowered you make him.

You probably shouldn't try to use Kumagawa in anything unless you've actually read the series, to get a feel for his character and the tone of the series in general.

edited 19th Aug '16 6:22:09 PM by Clarste

Also, it is important to note Kumagawa doesn't always 'lose' but it is just that most of his 'victories' don't really feel like such to him.

edited 19th Aug '16 3:46:55 PM by GAP

Kumagawa's abilities depend on the point when you use him, but if you're using him with All-Fiction like in the example you game, he can erase or Ret-Gone whatever he wants, including concepts, abilities, senses, objects, people, the time it would take for him to accomplish something and events. Also, it activates automatically on his death to Ret-Gone his death. He always loses, by which we mean he will never achieve exactly he was aiming for (but usually manages to achieve most of what he needs anyway by arranging how he can fail).

But yes, Kumagawa is a complicated character who should be studied before you try to use him.

EDIT: In addition, he's an expert at psychologically breaking people, can intrinsically identify and target weaknesses and he's erased his "aura", so he can only be sensed via sight and sound.

edited 21st Aug '16 12:20:05 PM by Sereg

This guy explains Kumagawa in a very interesting way.

This guy break even down even further.

I had been asking around in the internet where I asked if the series is evena decosntruction in the traditional sense or is it simply a shonen manga done by Nisio Isin. Going back to the previous pages, Medaka Box is tougue-in-cheek as it seems to be a more of a tribute to shonen tropes rather than taking them down. One poster even commented on Medaka Box is mechanically a shonen battle manga despite parodying the tropes it uses just as Hot Shots and Loaded weapon are action movies despite being parodies.

Medaka Box is genre-savvy, but it's not a deconstruction. In a way, "shonen as done by Nisio Isin" is an apt way to describe the series.

It has deconstructive elements in it, but isn't an all-out deconstruction.

There isn't such a thing as something that is only deconstructive elements and nothing else, so why the arbitrary distinction?

Why do you think that a work where the overall theme and most of the genre tropes are deconstructed is only arbitrarily different from a work where only a few genre tropes are deconstructed?

(5)

Is this... an overanalysis? Because this makes the series seem a bit deeper than the anime gave off.

The series is most certainly quite a deeper than the anime gave off- the anime only really adapted the bad part. And it's not so much overanalysis as much as what the series fairly directly says.

edited 24th Sep '16 9:42:07 AM by Gilphon

I think that the decision on where it goes from a few genre tropes to an overall theme is arbitrary, because it's a scale and one that one cannot reach the end of.

Are you just trolling, or do you really think there's no notable difference between "a little of something" and "much of something"?

Yes, it's an Affectionate Parody.

Not trolling. I legitimately believe that the border between where something becomes "a little" and "a lot" is entirely subjective and thus arbitrary.

But the point isn't exactly where the border is. You're saying there's no point in saying that something is almost white rather than almost black, because they're both just grey, so it doesn't matter anyway.

I have no problem calling both "grey", yes. I can compare them by claiming that one is closer to black or white than the other, but neither actually is black or white. They're both grey.

Why would you compare them when you say the distinction is just arbitrary and question why someone would make it? You're contradicting yourself.

This is a stupid argument about nothing and I would prefer if it ended here.

I agree.