Wonder Woman Controversial Opinions Part 2

[Koriand'r]

It differentiates her and causes more contrast with Superman.

[TheCasualReader]

I see Wonder Woman as someone who should and would kill in self-defense and the self-defense of others, but I still think a "No kill rule" would be best because it feels like it's inevitable that the nuance would be stripped away sooner or later.

The perfectly reasonable, makes-sense-for-the-character nuanced "This character is okay with killing so long as it is in self-defense or in the immediate defense of someone else" becomes just "This character is okay with killing"

"There's a reason I don't have a list of villains as long as Bruce's, Barry's or even yours. When I deal with them, I deal with them."

[Primal Slayer]

Diana growing up among Amazons who train for any possible battle and are willing to kill doesnt make much sense to me for her to be the only one to not kill. She doesnt need to be unique in every single way to her Amazon sisters.

[Gaius]

I pretty much echo CasualReader. I think Diana not having a "no-kill code" makes sense for her character but it is easily flanderized by certain lesser writers and subsections of fandom of making Diana "female Punisher but with sword instead of a glock".

That said, I don't care for the justification of Diana not having no-kill code because Superman and Batman do. Just reads as making her a foil for them rather than treating her as a character created independently of them, no different from Trinity shipping.

[Agent Z]

Wonder Woman's problem is being written poorly which is going to happen regardless of if she is a killer or not. If you look at the stories where her being a killer was the issue, she was being written that way to make her look like a villain or to be less moral than someone else (Injustice and Kingdom Come easily come to mind).

Batman being written poorly is a direct result of him being an ******* in the ways I mentioned but DC doesn't have a specific moral rule that prevents that characterization.

[SiegePerilous02]

That said, I don't care for the justification of Diana not having no-kill code because Superman and Batman do. Just reads as making her a foil for them rather than treating her as a character created independently of them, no different from Trinity shipping.

Yeah I'd rather have it because it's what Marston intended, not because of the other two Trinity members. Same with them, I don't want Superman to have a no-kill code just because Batman does.

Wonder Woman's problem is being written poorly which is going to happen regardless of if she is a killer or not. If you look at the stories where her being a killer was the issue, she was being written that way to make her look like a villain or to be less moral than someone else (Injustice and Kingdom Come easily come to mind).

Batman being written poorly is a direct result of him being an ******* in the ways I mentioned but DC doesn't have a specific moral rule that prevents that characterization.

Yeah she can be written poorly in many ways, but the "Wonder Punisher" take has been Flanderized so much without gaining much good in return. Perez introduced it when she killed Deimos and it worked well in that instance, but he didn't do much else with it for the rest of his run. Rucka had a great arc planned, but we know how that went and it became worse than ever. Simone wrote the stance with more nuance and almost got it back on track, but then they just doubled down on her being overly aggressive in stuff like New 52 and Injustice.

So we get three authors that did Ok with it (as much as they could), and a whole lot of crap. What is the upside to keeping it around?

[Agent Z]

Yeah I'd rather have it because it's what Marston intended, not because of the other two Trinity members. Same with them, I don't want Superman to have a no-kill code just because Batman does.



Yeah she can be written poorly in many ways, but the "Wonder Punisher" take has been Flanderized so much without gaining much good in return. Perez introduced it when she killed Deimos and it worked well in that instance, but he didn't do much else with it for the rest of his run. Rucka had a great arc planned, but we know how that went and it became worse than ever. Simone wrote the stance with more nuance and almost got it back on track, but then they just doubled down on her being overly aggressive in stuff like New 52 and Injustice.

So we get three authors that did Ok with it (as much as they could), and a whole lot of crap. What is the upside to keeping it around?

Speaking for myself, at least it means we don't get idiocy like Action Comics #775 attached to her.

As I said, the issue is the writers not the concept itself. I don't see why Perez had to "do much else with it" when establishing it was simply all that was needed.

[SiegePerilous02]

Speaking for myself, at least it means we don't get idiocy like Action Comics #775 attached to her.

As I said, the issue is the writers not the concept itself. I don't see why Perez had to "do much else with it" when establishing it was simply all that was needed.

No, but we get idiocy like "I don't have any villains because I take care of them" and blowing up part of a building in the Snyder Cut to kill one powerless dude.

It's a case of "pick your poison," but it's not like Superman's no-kill code forces writers to write bad stuff like Action #775 any more than Perez's take forced the later stuff. But it's actually resulted in good/great stuff like "Miracle Monday," and having impact for the end of "Whatever Happened to...?". Whereas Wonder Woman being willing to kill has rarely resulted in anything that good and it's opened her up to VERY bad takes.

[BiteTheBullet]

Speaking for myself, at least it means we don't get idiocy like Action Comics #775 attached to her.

As I said, the issue is the writers not the concept itself. I don't see why Perez had to "do much else with it" when establishing it was simply all that was needed.

Which story was the 775 you are referencing?

[John Venus]

Writers don't know how to pick a middle ground. Either such a hard core pacifist that you are willing to cause more deaths by letting mass murderers run free or you're a blood knight willing to find any excuse to kill, main and slaughter. Sadly, it's not limited to just writers but also fans (see Avatar fans and Kiyoshi).

Whether or not Diana kills or how much or how willing she is to murder shouldn't be dependent on populist trends or whether another character does it, it should be informed by her history and what she is meant to be. Marston gave her a no-kill rule and part of the reason he did it is because he wasn't just trying to feed into WW2 propaganda with his comics but also because he was trying to imagine something better than what current society and while I don't think every single idea Marston had withstood the test of time, I think the core idea of WW being forward thinking and attempt to do better should be respected. That said, it's in character for Diana to kill: if the situation demands it. I don't think it should be too much to expect heroes to not kill people unnecessarily.

[Vordan]

Which story was the 775 you are referencing?

What’s So Funny About Truth, Justice, and the American Way?

Agent Z doesn’t like that story.

[Vordan]

I'll accept Diana having a no killing rule when the same fans also demand a no torture rule, no privacy violation rule, no contamination of evidence rule, no abuse rule and no plotting to "neutralize" his friends rule for Batman.

I absolutely think Batman torturing should result in Supes and Wondy giving him hell for it like Wondy got for killing Lord. I extremely dislike seeing writers portray Batman as someone willing to use torture to get information, that bit in Arkham Knight where he almost crushes a thugs skull beneath the Batmobile has aged like milk.

[BiteTheBullet]

What’s So Funny About Truth, Justice, and the American Way?

Agent Z doesn’t like that story.

Is that the one with Manchester Black?

[Gaius]

I absolutely think Batman torturing should result in Supes and Wondy giving him hell for it like Wondy got for killing Lord. I extremely dislike seeing writers portray Batman as someone willing to use torture to get information, that bit in Arkham Knight where he almost crushes a thugs skull beneath the Batmobile has aged like milk.

This?



Never played the Arkham games but guess this why you don't make the Batmobile a playable feature, lol.

[John Venus]

Yeah, torture doesn't even work in real life. The victim will just keep telling lies and sending you on wild goose chases just to get a brief respite from the pain. Yet, pop culture would have think it's the secret forbidden technique to getting information.