Quote Originally Posted by SiegePerilous02 View Post
Has her being able to cross the line when needed ever actually been beneficial for her?
It's as beneficial and detrimental to her as the no killing rule is to Batman and Superman. That is, it can work as well as the writer depicts it

It gives precedent for poor writers to exaggerate her and make her a stab happy lunatic.
Are we calling Mark Waid and Grant Morrison poor writers now? Because they've done more to push than any almost any other writer.

Funny thing is that this portrayal only appears in elseworld tales or Justice League stories and is usually done by writers who want to make a "point" about how Diana has lost her way. Meanwhile, people like Rucka and Perez had Diana use lethal force within reason and didn't feel the need to go on long-winded, morally confused screeds about the evils of killing (while praising or ignoring heroes for actions that were less justifiable than most of the killings Diana has done).


Meanwhile, the writers who actually execute it well still don't have her kill anyone who actually matters. Where is the mainstream story where she finally kills Dr. Psycho or the Joker? No, just have her kill a mythological monster as if anyone cares.
I don't know if she'd have much to lose from killing Psycho. I wouldn't object to her or anyone else putting the Joker six feet under where he belongs but the Bat office is likely to have control over that. Besides, we both know that will just make her the target of a really ugly section of the fandom.