As a Wonder Woman Fan, Does it Bother You if Diana Kills?

[Sacred Knight]

It only bothers me if its wanton and without other viable solutions. As examples, Max Lord did not bother me. The insinuation Johns made that she killed as a quick solution does (like masterwitch says though, he only had her say that to compensate for the fact they're terrible at building her rogues gallery). As an aside, what beautiful art messed up by a bad line.

[Vordan]

I can’t see Diana ever killing normal humans, or even Metahumans. Creatures of myth are a different story since death doesn’t affect them the same way, so I can see her being more willing to use lethal force in those cases.

[Agent Z]

Diana killed Max who was a metahuman and advocated killing Dr. Light who was also a metahuman. I don't get this argument that humans should be off limits to her. Even ignoring canon, it would make her as hypocritical as Batman and Superman were when they got on her case for killing Max but said nothing about her killing Medusa.

[Agent Z]

I can’t see Diana ever killing normal humans, or even Metahumans. Creatures of myth are a different story since death doesn’t affect them the same way, so I can see her being more willing to use lethal force in those cases.

Death isn't any more permanent for humans in the DCU than it is for creatures of myth and magic and there have been monsters who were killed by Diana and stayed dead.

[Psy-lock]

This is not Wonder Woman:

Let's just headcanon that by dealing with them she actually meant reforming.

[phonogram12]

She can go crazy against gods and mythological creatures, I don't care. Humans is too far, though.

[Avi]

It bothers me because DC uses kills to sh/t on her and because most writers only make her a murderous fighter because they think that way she is "more interesting". I side with what has already been mentioned: Diana kills when she sees no other way to protect. Anything else is bad/lazy writing.

Characters in the DCU are often less affected when they kill otherworldly species, but I wonder if that's about to change for Diana in the current comic arc. Her reaction to the eternal damnation last Issue was pretty strong.

[WonderLight789]

It bothers me when they use it to have Batman or Superman playing higher ''moral'' ground with her.

[Primal Slayer]

No, she should kill when it's appropriate. If its the last resort then Id rather her kill them then leave them free to kill more people. How many lives would Batman save if he didnt hesitate with the Joker every time?

I just don't want her to be bloodthirsty

[marhawkman]

Depends on the situation.

Should she be killing Biff the Armed Robber when she could easily subdue him and hand him off to the authorities? Abso-effing-lutely not.

Should she be killing a mythical monster who she knows will bring mass murder at every opportunity they get? Sure.

Because Diana is such an experienced and skilled warrior, I think she's able to decipher whether her opponent can be stopped through reasoning (or nonlethal combat). If they can't, like Max Lord or Medusa, she has no other option -- she has to kill them to save countless lives.

I think this discussion came out of DC going insane with the "heroes don't kill" thing. It's unrealistic when you look at it from a real-world perspective. Also, DC doesn't apply it consistently. It almost always gets applied to humans, but... aliens? maybe, maybe not.

[hairys]

As the last resort, of course, as others have mentioned. That's how it should be for all of the Trinity, really. And I say this as a huge Punisher fan over in that other company, but it's all about being true to the character and established canon.

It bothers me when they use it to have Batman or Superman playing higher ''moral'' ground with her.

I'm more annoyed when "Diana kills" is used as a point to buildup how great Batman and Superman are for their no-kill codes.

Exactly. If anything, realistically, logically, Diana has saved lives better than those two when she kills as a last resort. Bruce should get blamed for all the deaths during Joker War, for example.

[SiegePerilous02]

In fairness to Batman, considering the crazy ass universe they live in, him killing the Joker would just result in the Joker rising the ranks in Hell and coming back as some horrible eldritch demon clown with a higher body count than ever before when he returns to Earth.

There is no winning here. The only reason Wonder Woman's rogues don't have as high a body count is because they aren't as marketable to be used as much (...)

[marhawkman]

And I say this as a huge Punisher fan over in that other company, but it's all about being true to the character and established canon.

Yeah, when the Punisher is written right, him killing people is akin to WW2 soldiers killing enemy soldiers.

Which... in the dozens of times Batman has killed people, is pretty much why Batman did it, tbh. But Batman philosophizes about how it's not really his fault.....

[Pinsir]

I'm of the opinion that she shouldn't, though it is not a make or break thing for me. I don't like it when she kills sentient "monsters" either (like Medusa from the first Rucka run).

[John Venus]

I'm not bothered by Diana killing someone (human or non-human) if the situation calls for it.

I'm only bothered by what people take away from it and the implication of how people react to it. I was on an FB page and people were talking how WW is more badass now because she murdered Maxwell Lord. It struck me as another manifestation of wanting comics and superheroes to be perceived as 'mature' and the only maturity to some folks seems to be pointing scenes of blood and gore. Also WW was created because Marston wanted to show that typically feminine traits like caring, compassion and yes redemption weren't inherently weak traits. So having Diana acting like an aggressive, blood thirsty warrior which the Nu52 tried to do feels like they're completely missing the point. I also think comics are set up in a way that makes heroes look foolish for supporting rehabilitation and preserving life by first equating mentally ill with murderous psychopaths and then by portraying the people whose like the heroes are trying to preserve as said murderous psychopaths who continue to kill people. I don't need an explanation for why certain villains keep coming back. The price of admission of reading is seeing them come back.

This is where I say that I'm not enamored by 'to kill or not to kill' stories. I think they are shallow. I don't think 'The Killing Joke' was all that but every Joker story since has turned into an attempt to outdo TKJ. Something like the TNBA episode where Ventriloquist tries to go straight but his old henchmen tries to force him back to a life crime and ending with him finally ridding of his Scarface personality is more meaningful to me than another comic where Joker gruesomely murders somebody. Or the Avatar: TLA episode where Jet tried to destroy the Fire Nation village and was in the wrong for it but he himself has suffered from the Fire Nations war, is a much more interesting conflict and I wish more writers would take notes from shows like that. You can show Diana caring for the victims but also trying to rehabilitate a villain. You can show her preserving life but also accept that she will take a life in a situation which calls for it.