Wonder Woman: How low can you go?

[Black Atom]

Hell, even Superman will kill robots (I'm not sure why, but he doesn't feel that his code extends to them, apparently).

I agree with being annoyed that everyone was dumping on her for killing Max Lord. It was a needed act. It was unwinnable without more deaths. Should she kill at the drop of a hat? No-very last resort. But if you don't keep every option available there comes a time when you have no options.

Batman doesn't kill because that's part of his trauma. Superman doesn't because it's part of his code. I'm sick of the argument that a hero killing a villian will inevitably lead to a dictatorship with evil superhuman overlords (no one here has made that, I'm just saying).

It may be out of character for WW to kill, but she's the one it is closest to being plausible. Very few others would have considered it (J'onn maybe would). Perhaps it was a sloppily set up plot, but it wasn't that unlikely for her. She is a warrior. Sometimes it must be done for the good of the many.

In that story, how exactly did that pan out?

[trypr]

I don't agree that a depressing story is automatically more "realistic" than an inspiring one, and I think wallowing in misery is at least as self-indulgent as engaging in fantasy.

It can be yes. The problem, again, is that wallowing in misery is also escapism. Essentially it's a control mechanism when dealing with stress: you regain control by prejudicing outcomes so they are certain. Also, I don't think self indulgence is a fair way to characterise it, because when it's employed as a genuine defence mechanism, it's a life line.

I am not trying to be negative about escapism in comics or in personal lives either. I just think that Wonder Woman's message is not served by Deus Ex Machina solutions to personal dilemmas and that has an implicit effect on how fantastic her stories can be.

I don't think I implied what you said, in my comment.

Anyhow, going back to the Maxwell Lord dilemma specifically, I agree with americanwonder that Diana had a number of choices. She could have chosen to not kill on principal, if that was her ethical belief, and whatever outcome occurred it would have been a victory for her integrity, although it would be a self centered choice. If Diana does not believe that taking a sentient life is absolutely wrong, which makes sense for someone from a warrior culture, then she has a range of choices; she could have retreated and looked for an unforeseen solution, or a variety of other things, as 3D said, with different chances of success, even washed her hands of the whole matter and left earth.

Part of self empowerment is learning to recognise your choices for what they are, to recognise your freedom to act as you choose. Being in a situation with no choice is the antithesis of self empowerment, not because there is no choice but because you think there are none.

The other part is enabling yourself to make those choices as you wish. In other words being able to take responsibility instead of passing it to someone else. This is not the same as taking immediate or unconsidered action; it is about making affirmative, informed decisions without regret.

I firmly agree with Mars that the way she was then treated and characterised afterwards, did colossal damage: it undermined all the above. But her intent, and the creative intent at the moment she actually killed him is apparent. Her ethical outlook was sketched out beforehand and her state of mind is completely clear on her face in those two panels.

You don't have to show Dr. Light raping someone to get the point across that he's a bad guy.

Of course not. Perhaps I should clarify that when I mean reality, I mean psychological realism, as that is the only topography for fantasy. Even so, it's not about realism vs escapism, which is a false dichotomy I agree. There is always a mix of the two in any fictional work, as I said, and the issue is matching the balance to the message; not setting the one against the other. I think this misunderstanding is a case of misreading.

Plus, it's open for interpretation, imo. Was Max trying to get her to kill him, or was he bluffing, in a sense, because he didn't think she'd actually go through with it? Or, did he just want to put her in a no-win situation?

It is, and that uncertainty is what makes it so powerful :) The title "Sacrifice" can apply to many elements, including Wonder Woman literally taking a life to save others, or the sacrifice of her public identity, mission, friends and potential freedom (she was turning herself in anyhow; Brother Eye just made sure she had no fair trial and that it was worse) in exchange for those lives.

It may be out of character for WW to kill, but she's the one it is closest to being plausible.

I don't think either of them would have made Diana's choice, I agree; and although Superman might (with the convenient complication that pitting him against himself or a less powerful superhero is not quite the same scenario) Batman would never murder. Ever.

I agree there is actually a lot of evidence, including killing and even her own words, that Diana does not believe taking life is wrong. I imagine there are a number of situations where she would agree it is justifiable, so It is not out of character for her; it's justifiably uncommon.

Everyone should read this.

I'm flattered and glad you found it interesting: thank you very much :)

[Black Atom]

Batman: "Diana how could you kill Max? That's so wrong."

WW: "You didn't seem to mind when I killed Medusa."

Batman: "Yeah, but she wasn't really human."

Superman: "Hello."

Batman: "But, you at least look human."

J'onn: "Umm ..."

Okay, that made me crack up, actually

[Eliseu Gouveia]

Not exactly Diana´s finnest hour:

[Whirlwind Dinamo]

it is kinda wrong to me personally for a woman who is supposed to be a beacon of hope, love, and peace

I hate to bump an old thread but I think this debate is important
in my opinion there should always be something wrong, dangerous, sexy, killer, femefatale and slightly immoral about Wonder Woman. She is from a different culture, not the culture of the United States. Yes she's an iconic American hero but she's a little different and her moral code from a different time Marston made her into a wonderful character, he could write Wonder Woman great, a fighter, sexy, a princess, strong, ambitious, intelligent but she also had a dark side and back in his day William Moulton "Charles" Marston would have been known as a sexual freak, yes he a great writer, he was a supporter of women, he a clever psychologist and inventor
but he was also scary and edgy to some people. His lie detector was spooky kinda like invading someone's mind, and his lifestyle would have been very strange back then.It's difficulut for people to understand it today with sex on tv, violence in games, internet porn and some mama shaking that thing in music videos but Wonder Woman was very edgy, dark and sexy in her day. I don't want to really describe the whole "rape fantasy" thing because the word "rape" is too loaded. However Marston knew women well, girls do dark things like guys, they do stupid things like guys and they also have very primitive instincts. You can see his comics played with the whole fetish thing, of women being attracted to bad men and yes some girls do go to the most horrible of guys, they fall in love with some wanabe merchant, a drunk, a failed poet, coning trickster men, forceful women, a womanizing musician drug addict of a man, girls do get into situations with really dumb guys. The visual images in his comics also play into the whole role-play fantasy, under neath the story of hero vs villain you see Marston also sometimes explore a fantasy about dominance, submission, and desire.
It's great to see Wonder Woman being read and on dvd cartoons but I think the character is losing something that originally was dark, sexy and a little wrong and edgy.

[Legato]

Personally I'd say either Amazons Attack or Frank Miller's Wonder Woman. Leaning more towards Miller's Wonder Woman being the lowest WW point.

[AlfredIslas]

Damn, people gave WW flack for killing a villain? Sounds awfully lame to me. Just because the two men of the trinity live behind some ridiculous code of "No Killing" which usually ends with the death of dozens of people or more doesn't mean Wonder Woman should have to live by that code. I love the fact that Wonder Woman is able to kill when it's necessary.

[sirjustin86]

I really don't see the big problem with the Maxwell Lord incident. Superman was literally going to kill everyone, and the only way to stop it, from Lord's mouth himself, with the Lasso of truth around him, was "kill me". Furthermore, didn't the WW Blackest Night special(s) show that she felt she had to do this act: one which she clearly regretted having to do (if I recall the BN specials correctly). She even refused to fight some Black Lanterns Lord brought about (or dead security men or something, vague memory of specifics) and when she did have to destroy them, again, she felt saddened that she had to... so to say her killing of Lord is her lowest point is looking at things a bit too black and white. But then again, I'm only one person, so maybe the general consensus says otherwise!

[brettc1]

History has shown us that when the superheroes start executing villains as a matter of policy the whole world goes to crap.

The Max thing has been debated ad nauseusm. It was a dumb idea overall and I am not surprised DC killed it deader than Max, especially since [OMG] he didn't stay dead.

[Outside_85]

I would have to say that the lowest point of WW...along with a few others, have to be the Elseworlds: Act of God.
She gets depowered and she just throws in the towel, implicating that saving lives doesn't mean that much to her that she is willing to look beyond superpowers.
Then she put up with drunken Superman who's nosedived the heaviest of them all, instead of providing him with the appropriate kick in the rear to get him back up.
Finally...well she abandons her own faith in Olympus and takes to Christiany. I am not sure how that even became a question for a character that's had genuine and repeated physical interaction with her gods and to me Diana is probably one of the most religious characters DC has in use.

All of this is ofc not really helped by the portrayal of other characters who get so upset by their lack of power that they eventually turn to Batman for aid. ( Have to say that in the event of total depowerment of WW and Aquaman, I find it far more likely that he retreats to his lighthouse and settles down with Mera than Diana becoming a stockbroker (I think it was))

[Zagreus]

Probably the Max Lord thing. I personally don't have ANY problem with WW killing when necessary, I just have a problem with the way the scenario was handled. Max was captured, and down for the count. He couldn't control Superman any longer under Diana's control or if simply K.O.ed. Max believed that the only way to stop him was to kill him, but that's Max's ego and belief, and WW is wise enough to see past that to other alternatives- i.e. Jail with a power dampener, permanently disabling his psionics (perhaps with consulting J'onn), etc. So, I don't like the story. If there was no other way to stop him but to kill him then I could see it, but he was captured by the superhuman, superspeed capable, and superwise, Wonder Woman, and this is what she comes up with. Her killing when needed, sure, as a last measure- like Thor or Captain America would do if they must. But this was not the scenario.

[Arvandor]

I hate to bump an old thread but I think this debate is important
in my opinion there should always be something wrong, dangerous, sexy, killer, femefatale and slightly immoral about Wonder Woman. She is from a different culture, not the culture of the United States. Yes she's an iconic American hero but she's a little different and her moral code from a different time Marston made her into a wonderful character, he could write Wonder Woman great, a fighter, sexy, a princess, strong, ambitious, intelligent but she also had a dark side and back in his day William Moulton "Charles" Marston would have been known as a sexual freak, yes he a great writer, he was a supporter of women, he a clever psychologist and inventor
but he was also scary and edgy to some people. His lie detector was spooky kinda like invading someone's mind, and his lifestyle would have been very strange back then.It's difficulut for people to understand it today with sex on tv, violence in games, internet porn and some mama shaking that thing in music videos but Wonder Woman was very edgy, dark and sexy in her day. I don't want to really describe the whole "rape fantasy" thing because the word "rape" is too loaded. However Marston knew women well, girls do dark things like guys, they do stupid things like guys and they also have very primitive instincts. You can see his comics played with the whole fetish thing, of women being attracted to bad men and yes some girls do go to the most horrible of guys, they fall in love with some wanabe merchant, a drunk, a failed poet, coning trickster men, forceful women, a womanizing musician drug addict of a man, girls do get into situations with really dumb guys. The visual images in his comics also play into the whole role-play fantasy, under neath the story of hero vs villain you see Marston also sometimes explore a fantasy about dominance, submission, and desire.
It's great to see Wonder Woman being read and on dvd cartoons but I think the character is losing something that originally was dark, sexy and a little wrong and edgy.

You're not wrong. If Marston was alive today, he'd probably be writing one of those bondage webcomics that are so popular. And Wonder Woman would have more in common with Jim Balent's Tarot than modern Diana.

[AlfredIslas]

I just don't see the Max Lord thing as big of a deal. Sometimes you gotta make a call and she felt killing him was the right thing. In that situation is she supposed to magically come up with 5,000 solutions that may or may not work and see them all through at the cost of many lives or just snap the guy's neck? It's one guy's death for the entire world. If the stakes were that high and a solution was that easy at little to no cost, why wouldn't she take it?

I think the argument against WW's actions feels just like a Batman & Superman circlejerk. It was really just one dangerous person for the lives of countless others. There is no "downward" spiral. It's just a bunch of people taking Batman & Superman's morals and acting like their's are without flaw.

[Rob_Olivera]

I just don't see the Max Lord thing as big of a deal. Sometimes you gotta make a call and she felt killing him was the right thing. In that situation is she supposed to magically come up with 5,000 solutions that may or may not work and see them all through at the cost of many lives or just snap the guy's neck? It's one guy's death for the entire world. If the stakes were that high and a solution was that easy at little to no cost, why wouldn't she take it?

I think the argument against WW's actions feels just like a Batman & Superman circlejerk. It was really just one dangerous person for the lives of countless others. There is no "downward" spiral. It's just a bunch of people taking Batman & Superman's morals and acting like their's are without flaw.

She wasn't supposed to come up with 5000. Only 1. And this one would've done.



I've no proof for my statement, but I'd be willing to bet Lord was probably no match for Psycho... and if they did this to Psycho, they could've done it to Lord as well. He was already subdued.

[carabas]

She wasn't supposed to come up with 5000. Only 1. And this one would've done.

It wouldn't. Because Psycho got out of that. And if it had been Max he'd instantly have has Superman back under his control.