Thoughts on Wonder Woman killing Maxwell Lord

[DochaDocha]

I feel Zack Snyder's Man of Steel has a lot of obvious parallels to "Sacrifice," and it's unsurprising to me that a lot of people focus on the killing itself and less on the circumstances that led to it.

[marhawkman]

It's not a question of why she killed Max but rather what she did before she made that choice. I believe many superhero fans are so used to the idea that killing is wrong or at least morally questionable that they reflexively block out all context when a superhero does it. I've seen this very thing happen in other conversations about superheroes using lethal force.

And yet at the same time you have an army of aliens get eradicated for the crime of setting foot on Earth. It's a malignant double standard used by people who are lazy with morality... yet try to WRITE stories with moral implications.

[Awonder]

The fact that people are still debating this is what I like most about it.

Like others here, I liked it at the time. I don't think it was set-up as well as it could have been, but, it was still quite good. However, as has been said, the aftermath in Infitie Crisis and elsewhere was ... not so good.

Regarding the infamous " I 'deal' with my enemies" line, I take it both ways. She works to reform them (not simply arrest them), and, when she must, she will end them. Now, I don't want her to be stabby-stabby all the time - it should be a very rare occasion only, when the risks are extremely high. The main focus should be on her efforts to help her foes change for the better.

[Ascended]

So, yeah...the act itself doesn't bother me. I rather liked the immediate aftermath of it--as it was written by Greg Rucka. But then Geoff Johns made a big mess of it, leaving a lasting stain we have to endure to this day.

In the grand scheme, they should've just stuck to Rucka's original pitch.

This.

I thought Rucka did a fair job with the task. I think he gave Diana a quality showing in the fight itself, I think he handled the aftermath decently.

Then Johns did Infinite Crisis and the whole thing went down hill from there. Which I think can be said for the entire "broken Trinity" concept. Watching the Trinity break over their own mistakes and disagreements had potential, and there were good ideas in the mix. But Johns somehow managed to avoid every single one, which is an achievement in and of itself.

What always got me is that Diana should've come out looking the best of them all. Batman made a murder machine satellite responsible for assimilating and killing thousands, Clark knew tons of shady things were happening in the hero community and said nothing. What did Diana do? Saved somebody's life. Saved the world, for that matter. Yet she was somehow wrong? In that same continuity Clark had executed three powerless Kryptonian criminals who were trapped in a collapsing pocket dimension. Those people were gonna be erased in like, ten minutes when their reality died, they had no powers, no way to escape, and Clark still killed them "just in case." They're not even the only people Clark had killed at that point in canon either, just the worst example! And he had the gall to condemn Diana for killing Max?

Rucka did write a great fight though, which was really appreciated at the time since it followed so closely to another Clark-Diana battle in For Tomorrow, where Diana had an absolutely horrid showing. Rucka did right by Diana, shame the same can't be said of DC in general, then or now.

[HotBoy]

This.

I thought Rucka did a fair job with the task. I think he gave Diana a quality showing in the fight itself, I think he handled the aftermath decently.

Then Johns did Infinite Crisis and the whole thing went down hill from there. Which I think can be said for the entire "broken Trinity" concept. Watching the Trinity break over their own mistakes and disagreements had potential, and there were good ideas in the mix. But Johns somehow managed to avoid every single one, which is an achievement in and of itself.

What always got me is that Diana should've come out looking the best of them all. Batman made a murder machine satellite responsible for assimilating and killing thousands, Clark knew tons of shady things were happening in the hero community and said nothing. What did Diana do? Saved somebody's life. Saved the world, for that matter. Yet she was somehow wrong?

This is what happens when stories are crafted in an industry swimming in institutional and unchecked misogyny and sexism.

https://bookriot.com/dc-comics-still...ender-problem/

https://bleedingcool.com/movies/warn...-woman-origin/

[bardkeep]

Then Johns did Infinite Crisis and the whole thing went down hill from there. Which I think can be said for the entire "broken Trinity" concept. Watching the Trinity break over their own mistakes and disagreements had potential, and there were good ideas in the mix. But Johns somehow managed to avoid every single one, which is an achievement in and of itself.

Hear me out...

I think something more along the lines of Hiketeia would've been a much better way to fracture the Trinity. Diana protects a murderer, bank robber, or some other major criminal (either because of a vow like in Hiketeia or because she saw that they were truly repentant and thought they deserved another chance). Batman wants to put them away because he doesn't think they deserve to get away with it, Superman takes a middle ground of "I don't know how justice should be served here but we can't act like we're above the law."

Meanwhile, as we saw with Max Lord, the public becomes aware of it (in this case Diana aiding and abetting a wanted criminal) and Diana gets embroiled in controversy over it, with the Amazons becoming public enemies because their ambassador is actively refusing to comply with American law.

It'd do a MUCH better job of exploring the characters' core values, it'd provide a much more interesting conflict, and it would have spared us years of terrible WW characterization. "Killing bad, Batman and Superman good" is far less interesting and more explored than "here's how each member of the Trinity interacts with the status quo and society at large." It's too bad a writer like Geoff Johns is nowhere near intelligent enough to pull off something with that much nuance.

[marhawkman]

Hear me out...

I think something more along the lines of Hiketeia would've been a much better way to fracture the Trinity. Diana protects a murderer, bank robber, or some other major criminal (either because of a vow like in Hiketeia or because she saw that they were truly repentant and thought they deserved another chance). Batman wants to put them away because he doesn't think they deserve to get away with it, Superman takes a middle ground of "I don't know how justice should be served here but we can't act like we're above the law."

Meanwhile, as we saw with Max Lord, the public becomes aware of it (in this case Diana aiding and abetting a wanted criminal) and Diana gets embroiled in controversy over it, with the Amazons becoming public enemies because their ambassador is actively refusing to comply with American law.

It'd do a MUCH better job of exploring the characters' core values, it'd provide a much more interesting conflict, and it would have spared us years of terrible WW characterization. "Killing bad, Batman and Superman good" is far less interesting and more explored than "here's how each member of the Trinity interacts with the status quo and society at large." It's too bad a writer like Geoff Johns is nowhere near intelligent enough to pull off something with that much nuance.

Yeah, when you look at it from that angle it's utterly absurd and out-of-character for them to treat Diana like that.

[DABellWrites]

This is what happens when stories are crafted in an industry swimming in institutional and unchecked misogyny and sexism.

https://bookriot.com/dc-comics-still...ender-problem/

https://bleedingcool.com/movies/warn...-woman-origin/

Nothing you posted really actually shows sexism. Gail Simone not liking New52 Wonder Woman origins? Who cares. I don't like it, but others do.

[bardkeep]

Nothing you posted really actually shows sexism. Gail Simone not liking New52 Wonder Woman origins? Who cares. I don't like it, but others do.

Did you read the article about why Gail Simone dislikes the n52 origin?

"Her main point was that it introduced a masculine power structure, especially one whose myths often involve taking advantage of women and instances of outright rape, to the origin of Diana. It made her story more about the dad and less about Hippolyta, her mother."

Another interesting article that addresses a similar point: "Wonder Woman and the Paternal Narrative: the Rise of Wonder Woman, the Fall of Women"

[Agent Z]

Hear me out...

I think something more along the lines of Hiketeia would've been a much better way to fracture the Trinity. Diana protects a murderer, bank robber, or some other major criminal (either because of a vow like in Hiketeia or because she saw that they were truly repentant and thought they deserved another chance). Batman wants to put them away because he doesn't think they deserve to get away with it, Superman takes a middle ground of "I don't know how justice should be served here but we can't act like we're above the law."

Meanwhile, as we saw with Max Lord, the public becomes aware of it (in this case Diana aiding and abetting a wanted criminal) and Diana gets embroiled in controversy over it, with the Amazons becoming public enemies because their ambassador is actively refusing to comply with American law.

It'd do a MUCH better job of exploring the characters' core values, it'd provide a much more interesting conflict, and it would have spared us years of terrible WW characterization. "Killing bad, Batman and Superman good" is far less interesting and more explored than "here's how each member of the Trinity interacts with the status quo and society at large." It's too bad a writer like Geoff Johns is nowhere near intelligent enough to pull off something with that much nuance.

Being as fair as possible to Johns, I think most writers couldn't pull it off.

[marhawkman]

Being as fair as possible to Johns, I think most writers couldn't pull it off.

well, part of the problem was how it got referenced in OTHER books too though.

[Ascended]

Hear me out...

It's too bad a writer like Geoff Johns is nowhere near intelligent enough to pull off something with that much nuance.

To be fair, it's unlikely DC would be too willing to dive into a deep character study that explores how these characters deal with actual socio-political issues. Too polarizing for the corporate suits to be comfortable with, and too subtle and nuanced a story for most comic book writers to pull off. Johns certainly couldn't do it, but neither could most of them.

But I do agree; splitting the Trinity along socio-political lines would've been the way to go. Which I suppose the story did try to do, kinda-sorta, using capital punishment and domestic spying as the topics (via vague superhero proxy of course).

Gave it a little thought last night, and if I were to break the Trinity I'd use a revolution in another country. I'd say there was some fictional nation, which much like Greece, has been under hard times. They're not a bad government, they want to do right by their people, but they've struggled with the global economic crisis and eventually cut a deal with some evil group like HIVE or somebody in an attempt to save their economy. Obviously it doesn't work out for them and the nation basically becomes a slave state. Now the people are rising up, attempting to overthrow the group that's infested their soil and the failed government that invited them in. Again, that government wouldn't be evil, just one that made some mistakes.

Clark would want to step in and help the rebels throw off their oppressive chains. Diana would want to help the government re-take their land and establish peace. Both would want to take down HIVE or whoever. Bruce would want them to stay out of it entirely. So all three end up on foreign soil, with Clark and Diana looking to help different sides and Bruce trying to pull them both out before they cause an international incident.

Since Infinite Crisis had an "original sin" for the Trinity, I suppose I'd do the same.

For Bruce, it'd be ignorance. Wayne Enterprises, as a corporate conglomerate, owns companies that are helping one side or the other. Bruce is getting richer by funding both sides of the conflict, but he didn't know what those companies were doing. Too wrapped up in his own interests in Gotham and his work as Batman to notice until it was too late. For a guy who's supposed to know everything, this is a big miss.

For Clark, it'd be inaction. He knew the struggles the foreign nation was having, he knew they had cut a deal with HIVE (or whoever), but he didn't step up until the people were doing it themselves, and his presence would be welcomed by them. For a guy who's supposed to be a man of action, waiting until things were at their absolute worst is a big miss.

For Diana, her sin would be believing in the government's right to rule. She's sympathetic to the people of course, but she'd still think the people in charge should remain there. In this she'd be thinking more as a royal of Themyscria, and not considering the problems of Man's World and how our governments are never as benign as Diana's own. For a woman who's supposed to be the most compassionate hero alive, this would be a big miss.

I dunno how I'd resolve the conflict so the Trinity could be hunky dory friends again. I didn't want that to happen with Infinite Crisis, and apparently I don't want it to happen now, since I couldn't be bothered to find a way to undo the damage.

Since IC happened in, what, 2006 or so, and DC was still heavily pushing Clark as an establishment man at the time, he and Diana may have reversed positions, but a properly written Superman is untrusting of government and a champion of the little guy, while Diana, trained from birth to rule, has more patience and understanding for such power structures. She loathes corruption and abuse as much (more) than anyone, but she gets the need for strong, moral government. And this is why I mention the foreign government not being "evil" here; Diana wouldn't support a cruel authority but I can see her wanting to help a regime that fell on hard times and made mistakes. She's all about redemption, after all.

[Guy_McNichts]

The problem with breaking up the Trinity over any big Issue is at least one of them often winds up flanderized or mischaracterized in some way.

As much as we--myself included--rag on Batman for being an overbearing prick, when he's written well, he's very much in pro-rehabilitation for criminals. Distilling him to simply "no kill = if you kill, I hate you = no compromise" is a disservice to him.

Similarly, when it comes to whether heroes should interfere with foreign affairs, something always winds up giving between Superman and Wonder Woman. One of them becomes the "cop"...defending a broken status quo because "the law"...and the other becomes the rebel who fights for the people, when they really should be on the same side nine times out of ten.

Superman was created to be a fighter for the people. In the Golden Age, he bullied corrupt landlords and actively fought against corruption. Wonder Woman, obviously, is someone meant to challenge the status quo.

So I have trouble buying Diana would favor a broken government just because she's royalty. Diana, who knows full well the flaws and dangers of the patriarchy, would not throw her support of any government body simply because of "right to rule."

But that's not to say Superman should be reduced to the milquetoast defender of a status quo either...something that happens to him too often.

Think of New Frontier's "There's the door, space-man." Cool moment for Diana. Also makes Clark look like a total nerd. But the conflict in that scene is probably as close to a genuine clash in ideology between the two we'll ever see.

It's not just a matter of nuance. The fact is these characters don't contrast/complement one another near enough for there to be any real meat.
Creators get a lot of mileage out of Superman and Batman being two sides of the same coin, but even then we'll get the exaggerated Frank Miller "Batman's cool, Superman's a stooge."

There could be clash between Bruce and Diana, but more often than not, that only works when we acknowledge he's a dick...and most writers don't like putting him on the wrong side of a conflict. Even when Bruce is wrong, they try to frame it like he was still kind of right/justified (ex: Tower of Babel and even more-so the animated adaptation which ends with him yelling at the League to shut up and don't question his methods).

Ultimately, these clashes--not even just the Trinity, but any conflict between heroes--just reveal the writers' biases. The character they favor will be right (or less wrong) and the character they don't will be wrong (or less right).

[bardkeep]

To be fair, it's unlikely DC would be too willing to dive into a deep character study that explores how these characters deal with actual socio-political issues. Too polarizing for the corporate suits to be comfortable with, and too subtle and nuanced a story for most comic book writers to pull off. Johns certainly couldn't do it, but neither could most of them.

But I do agree; splitting the Trinity along socio-political lines would've been the way to go. Which I suppose the story did try to do, kinda-sorta, using capital punishment and domestic spying as the topics (via vague superhero proxy of course).

Gave it a little thought last night, and if I were to break the Trinity I'd use a revolution in another country. I'd say there was some fictional nation, which much like Greece, has been under hard times. They're not a bad government, they want to do right by their people, but they've struggled with the global economic crisis and eventually cut a deal with some evil group like HIVE or somebody in an attempt to save their economy. Obviously it doesn't work out for them and the nation basically becomes a slave state. Now the people are rising up, attempting to overthrow the group that's infested their soil and the failed government that invited them in. Again, that government wouldn't be evil, just one that made some mistakes.

Clark would want to step in and help the rebels throw off their oppressive chains. Diana would want to help the government re-take their land and establish peace. Both would want to take down HIVE or whoever. Bruce would want them to stay out of it entirely. So all three end up on foreign soil, with Clark and Diana looking to help different sides and Bruce trying to pull them both out before they cause an international incident.

Since Infinite Crisis had an "original sin" for the Trinity, I suppose I'd do the same.

For Bruce, it'd be ignorance. Wayne Enterprises, as a corporate conglomerate, owns companies that are helping one side or the other. Bruce is getting richer by funding both sides of the conflict, but he didn't know what those companies were doing. Too wrapped up in his own interests in Gotham and his work as Batman to notice until it was too late. For a guy who's supposed to know everything, this is a big miss.

For Clark, it'd be inaction. He knew the struggles the foreign nation was having, he knew they had cut a deal with HIVE (or whoever), but he didn't step up until the people were doing it themselves, and his presence would be welcomed by them. For a guy who's supposed to be a man of action, waiting until things were at their absolute worst is a big miss.

For Diana, her sin would be believing in the government's right to rule. She's sympathetic to the people of course, but she'd still think the people in charge should remain there. In this she'd be thinking more as a royal of Themyscria, and not considering the problems of Man's World and how our governments are never as benign as Diana's own. For a woman who's supposed to be the most compassionate hero alive, this would be a big miss.

I dunno how I'd resolve the conflict so the Trinity could be hunky dory friends again. I didn't want that to happen with Infinite Crisis, and apparently I don't want it to happen now, since I couldn't be bothered to find a way to undo the damage.

Since IC happened in, what, 2006 or so, and DC was still heavily pushing Clark as an establishment man at the time, he and Diana may have reversed positions, but a properly written Superman is untrusting of government and a champion of the little guy, while Diana, trained from birth to rule, has more patience and understanding for such power structures. She loathes corruption and abuse as much (more) than anyone, but she gets the need for strong, moral government. And this is why I mention the foreign government not being "evil" here; Diana wouldn't support a cruel authority but I can see her wanting to help a regime that fell on hard times and made mistakes. She's all about redemption, after all.

This is a huge misread on Diana's thematic center and frankly a sad reflection on how far she's deviated from her roots. The Amazons' entire backstory is about them revolting against their oppressors, finding their own better way of living, and spreading that message to the world. It's the one central element of her lore that carried over from Marston to Perez.

For all of WW: Earth One's problems, Grant Morrison understood the opposing goals of Superman and Wonder Woman, and the logical endpoint of their missions. In All-Star Superman, his mission ends with him doing good deeds until the very end, and even in death he stays a man of action, doing everything he can to keep the world moving. He's a protector, not a revolutionary. In Earth One, Wonder Woman's mission ends with every global institution and government being completely dismantled and built back up according to the Amazons' vision of a better world. She's not just trying to make the world better; she's trying to make it completely different.

Ritesh Babu wrote a really good series that goes through the political foundations of the character (I'm a bit less convinced by his analyses Post-Crisis) if you're curious. I also recommend reading the recent Wonder Woman Historia, which really gets at the heart of the Amazons' politics from a modern feminist lens.

And as Guy_McNichts said, writer biases will always come into play. I think the scene in New Frontier where Diana frees the captive women in Vietnam and leaves them to take up arms against their captors while Superman wants to report it to the government is a perfect reflection of where they ought to stand on things, but you'd probably think that Superman is a stooge. And John Byrne's idea of what Superman "ought" to be is very different from yours as well.

But there's definitely something unique about Wonder Woman's politics. Superman was conceived as the common man's power fantasy (something that's infinitely mutable and can take on all sorts of different political dimensions), but Wonder Woman was explicitly conceived as radical propaganda.

[Gaelforce]

Did a bit of editing.

Let's leave real life politics and political articles out of the discussion.