Who would want to be a rogue of Diana's?!?!?

[titanfan]

If you're an up and coming villain, I'd mess with Superman and Batman before I'd even bother to mess with Diana. Batman and Supes would just take me to jail. If I were a dangerous, irredeemable and unrepentant villain, Diana would just snap my neck or put an axe to my head.

If the Joker ever tried on of his schemes near Diana's? Dead. Mongul? Dead on his 3rd or 4th attempt at world domination. If you want to be a recurring WW villain you either need to be able to come back from the dead (I.e. Circe, Ares) or not be totally murderous/evil. (Giganta/Silver Swan) Frankly, Cheetah's latest scheme with Genocide would have justified Diana taking her life. If she's graduated to that level of villainy, Diana wouldn't just let her kill hundreds of people all over again.

So when you think about it, it does make sense when Diana doesn't have many earth bound villains like Flash or Batman. No one wants to mess with her, and she's done a better job of permanently eliminating future threats than Superman and Batman have. She should rub that in Bruce's face the next the gets all high and mighty with her about killing.

[shrike]

If you're an up and coming villain, I'd mess with Superman and Batman before I'd even bother to mess with Diana. Batman and Supes would just take me to jail. If I were a dangerous, irredeemable and unrepentant villain, Diana would just snap my neck or put an axe to my head.

If the Joker ever tried on of his schemes near Diana's? Dead. Mongul? Dead on his 3rd or 4th attempt at world domination. If you want to be a recurring WW villain you either need to be able to come back from the dead (I.e. Circe, Ares) or not be totally murderous/evil. (Giganta/Silver Swan) Frankly, Cheetah's latest scheme with Genocide would have justified Diana taking her life. If she's graduated to that level of villainy, Diana wouldn't just let her kill hundreds of people all over again.

So when you think about it, it does make sense when Diana doesn't have many earth bound villains like Flash or Batman. No one wants to mess with her, and she's done a better job of permanently eliminating future threats than Superman and Batman have. She should rub that in Bruce's face the next the gets all high and mighty with her about killing.

Good point, and its hard to put the fear of god into people like Batman supposedly does even though hes well known for his 'no kill' tactics, not to mention the revolving door that is Arkham and Gotham Penitentiary.

[LtMarvel]

There's always BreathsFunnyWhenGirlsHitHim Guy.

He'll do it.

[galactica]

Actually it would be because Wonder Woman doesn't operate in such a way that would bring her in contact with many villains. Batman protects Gotham City. Superman protects Metropolis and pretty much the whole planet. Wonder Woman seems to deal mostly with Amazon-related problems.


Of course the real reason is Wonder Woman doesn't have the rogues gallery SM and BM because her villains do not measure up. WW doesn't kill Cheetah because she is one of the popular WW villains. SM and BM just have many many more popular villains than her.

[BnL]

Eh, I think people make her out to be more kill-happy than she really is. It takes a lot for her to think killing is justified. She believes that most villains are redeemable. She almost succeeded with both Circe and Cheetah in the past. You'd also have to be impossible to imprison to qualify for killing. And I don't take that to mean, "Will this person ever, at some point, have the chance to escape from their incarceration?," but rather, "Can we build a prison that's capable of even containing this villain?"

[DavidAllred]

You know the kid that acts out in class just to get attention -- any kind of attention -- good or bad? Yeah, well that's me and Diana. :eek:

[Major Comma]

it depends.
Can I WIN?

[Arrogantcur]

Well, the Gorilla Knights started out as her enemies and that worked out okay.

But I gotta echo Major Comma on this: unless I had a decent chance of winning or better, I wouldn't want to face her, or Supes.

[PatrickG]

I think this "villains choosing/inspired by heroes" trend is really a bit of revisionist thinking that has its roots in the success of Luthor after the retcon in the 50s that gave him a first name and tied him personally to Superman and the success of Doctor Doom. Watchmen cemented the link to a point where it was assumed almost all villains did it.

Looking back at the actual Golden-Age and to a lesser extent the Silver-Age, it seems many villains debuted either apathetic to the existence of super-heroes or ignorant of the existence of super-heroes and independently decided to wear costumes. Riddler being the big exception that springs to mind as he wanted Batman as a rival.

But, traditionally, most super-villains wanted money or fame or power and destroying a super-hero/getting revenge was only something they came to want after repeated thwartings. And even then, the standard seemed to be that they committed crimes in costumes but didn't expect heroes to show up or tried to avoid them. The idea that they wear the costumes because they WANT arch-nemeses is a bit revisionist. As is the idea that there's something psychologicaly off about people wearing costumes and becoming heroes, largely a product of 70s social relevance and Watchmen.

I really think the "pure" take is that comic books exist in a fantasy world where normal human psychology leads people to wear costumes and become heroes or villains and that the people who don't are a bit milquetoast or out of touch with themselves or just not lucky enough to become super-heroes. But you almost have to accept the idea that people think of super-heroism/villainy as normal and that anyone who CAN do it, would unless they have some kind of abnormal psychological defect.

It isn't REAL society or a REAL world but a world as designed by children and the childlike.

The "pure" take on a super-hero's world is probably better reflected by something like Codename: Kids Next Door or Kim Possible than the average post-Watchmen super-hero book.

[PatrickG]

Incidentally, this is the problem I have with Identity Crisis and a lot of modern super-hero books, particularly the Bat-books.

I don't think super-villains, as a rule, would target the loved ones of heroes, set out to kill heroes and would be no more likely to be rapists (or murderers, really) than the average person.

IMHO, they want what they want, which varies by the villain, and they want heroes and those who get in their way to leave them alone or ignore them. The average villain doesn't derive any more pleasure from killing than the average construction worker, waiter or soccer mom. They're just stuck at a meltdown point, having an uncontrolled hissy fit where they NEGLIGENT towards human life because they have a personal goal they're obsessed with.

Whereas I think the average HERO would see a diametric heroes vs. villains rivalry, I think the average VILLAIN wouldn't understand what isn't normal about wearing a costume to commit crimes, go shopping or go on a cruise... And doesn't understand why heroes keep picking on them.

IMHO, heroes choose to wear costumes. But villains, more often than not, don't realize it even makes them stand out. Don't see purple and orange spandex with antlers as anymore of a costume than a flannel shirt and jeans. It's just a fashion choice to them. They simply haven't imprinted societal mores.

[PatrickG]

Expounding the thought again, I think heroes tend to wear "costumes", disguises, functional gear.

Whereas I think villains simply have no defined boundaries. They wouldn't see anything odd in going to the grocery store in a purple leopard suit, totally naked or dressed up as Napoleon. They aren't IMMORAL. Just AMORAL. Socially awkward to a hazardous extreme. Missing connections or upbringing or standards most of us have encoded or having rejected many of those standards after a traumatic incident.

They think, "I want the job/girl/money/recognition, why can't I have it?" And generally, they at least initially have some good reasons to misinterpret what they deserve -- or perhaps they actually DO deserve the job or whatever. Maybe the girl (or guy) does flirt with them or even love them. Maybe they've earned the recognition or money. But their extremity causes them to be (more often than not unjustly) denied what other people in their position would get.

And so they snap and decide not to play by standards. They aren't OPPOSED to standards or morals or societal values. They simply don't heed them in favor of following their personal code.

A villain isn't any more likely to be a rapist or a pedophile than bartender or a school teacher. Maybe less likely. Their romantic flaw is that they can't process rejection well and either ignore it or, more often, are crippled and hurt by it. And not every villain is even a thief but they simply think that they want/need something for their actualization/destiny/what's been promised them and so they grab it, believing they will be thanked, greeted as a liberator.