How can deadly be comparative? Surely if one is killed by a knife or by an A-bomb one is still just as dead. Although people may argue that factors such as speed come into the equation - sure it will kill faster... but when everything is said and done one isn't "deader", they're just dead.
Or given the example of chance of death... say two snakes, one which has a 100% of killing, the other a 50% chance. The "100% snake" is not "deadlier", rather it has a 100% chance of being deadly, while the other has a 50% chance of being deadly. But that doesn't make the "100% snake" more deadly. Isn't the comparison between the chance of becoming deadly, rather than how deadly the snake is?
- Language just isn't that precise. You can say someone is "deader than a doornail" (meaning they are very certainly dead); it doesn't mean they are more dead than somebody else who died. Equinox ◑ 03:59, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Newfoundland English uses the term presently in the same sense as definition four. I don't know where I would find any sort of evidence in a written work though, so I am not gonna add that to the Australian Aboriginal Slang note there.