Azzarello - The Final Judgement.

[Redwing]

You know orphans that have killed people??? As for the First Born being a leader. Yeah, that's not much of a one-up on the Cheetah being that most of those he lead were in-bread Hyena men, mad-crazy Cassandra, and the simpleton known as the Minotaur. Cheetah has lead other villains before. See the recent A.R.G.U.S. mini-series for an example. As for Cheetah's motivation, she wants power (as evidenced in her recent Justice League appearance).

I'm curious as to which stories you've read in which the Cheetah was prominently featured that you came to the conclusion that she has "no motivation or purpose"? Please do list them for me.

First question: Yes i do. Growing up in some orphanages and the way kids are treated does and has caused bitterness and criminal behavior in some. Read up on it. As for Cheetah, power for what??? To do what with? E.very villain wants power but for what purpose? And see, here's the mark of a great villain: I dont have to read their every appearance to know what their motivation is because its clear and consistent in their legends, like Luthor. The fact youre asking me what I read underscores that her motivation has never been close army defined. You still havent clearly answered my question so why answer yours? Ive read runs with the character in the past. Those I have have never been consistent over the years.

[Hawk80]

The world is afire due to the changing of the wonder woman myth. You dont know how people would react to chanes in Supes myth. I'd welcome the whole "truth justice and american way trope being gotten rid of cause its corny and problematic and propaganda. No double standards here.

Wait, I just used "T.,J.&A.W." as a short for "classic and dated portrayal of superman (costume, morals, motivations, ecc ecc ecc ecc ecc ecc)".

No double standard there, but a massive case of double standard affecting lots of people

[Gaelforce]

Lots of editing and some deleting this morning.

Let's all take it down a notch and keep the personal comments out of it.

Thanks!

[Dr. Poison]

First question: Yes i do. Growing up in some orphanages and the way kids are treated does and has caused bitterness and criminal behavior in some. Read up on it. As for Cheetah, power for what??? To do what with? E.very villain wants power but for what purpose? And see, here's the mark of a great villain: I dont have to read their every appearance to know what their motivation is because its clear and consistent in their legends, like Luthor. The fact youre asking me what I read underscores that her motivation has never been close army defined. You still havent clearly answered my question so why answer yours? Ive read runs with the character in the past. Those I have have never been consistent over the years.

I did answer your question about the Cheetah. I guess you don't find my answer to be satisfactory. I don't see the Cheetah's motivation for power any less captivating than the Joker's motivation to cause chaos for Batman or the First Born's of wanting revenge for being cast out. Can you please tell me which Cheetah stories you've read so perhaps, I can get a better understanding as to where you're coming from?

[SiegePerilous02]

First question: Yes i do. Growing up in some orphanages and the way kids are treated does and has caused bitterness and criminal behavior in some. Read up on it. As for Cheetah, power for what??? To do what with? E.very villain wants power but for what purpose? And see, here's the mark of a great villain: I dont have to read their every appearance to know what their motivation is because its clear and consistent in their legends, like Luthor. The fact youre asking me what I read underscores that her motivation has never been close army defined. You still havent clearly answered my question so why answer yours? Ive read runs with the character in the past. Those I have have never been consistent over the years.

You say Luthor's motivation is clear and consistent, but it isn't. At various points, he's hated Superman for stunting the human race because they rely on him, or he cannot buy/control him with his money and power, or because he blames Superman for destroying a planet he ruled along with a family he built, simple jealousy, or just being pissed at him for ruining his hair. The Joker used to be a creepy, humorless thief, before becoming a plain nuisance, than a ghoulish killer again with aspirations to becoming the greatest criminal mastermind of all time, etc. The agent of random chaos is something relatively recent. So Cheetah having a wide range of incarnations and motivations isn't something unique to her, and I hate the double standard. Meanwhile, the Aquaman fans are celebrating Ocean Master's new history and motivations, not using it as proof that he was always a weak character who needed to be salvaged.

As far as the New 52 goes, DC seems content to just reveal random bits and pieces of Barbara's history and motivations whenever it suits them. It's annoying, but the blanks allow some creative freedom: her life at her aunt's creepy religious compound, what she got up to before meeting Diana, her time at A.R.G.U.S, possible interactions with the Gods (especially Artemis) who may not be too impressed with her worship, and other stuff. With the First Born, we got a lot more concrete material, and his history and motivation were clearly defined. The problem is, a lot of us found the whole thing boring when it was stretched out for two years. His total lack of personality besides being a rampaging beast, unlike say the Rogues, Sinestro or the better written portrayals of the Joker, didn't help either. Barbara at least has a love of adventure and archaeology to give her something else to do besides being a menace.

[Redwing]

I did answer your question about the Cheetah. I guess you don't find my answer to be satisfactory. I don't see the Cheetah's motivation for power any less captivating than the Joker's motivation tooou ver cause chaos for Batman or the First Born's of wanting revenge for being cast out. Can you please tell me which Cheetah stories you've read so perhaps, I can get a better understanding as to where you're coming from?

Joker's motivation is to cause chaos: period. His insanity is what drives him. Batman is a bonus he's obssessed with. First Born's motivation isnt out of revenge, its out of taking back not only his birthright but to take over and subjugate the world out of hatred. His destiny led him to be a god of hatred and destruction and Azzarello implied that in his run. He's a nihilist. Now: some may like that and some may not but it is a clear and defined motivation and purpose.

Now: it takes power of various sorts to achieve the goals Joker or First Born wants. Power is a tool to get what you want or accomplish something. All youre telling me is that Cheetah wants power. What does she want to do with it? What is her end goal? You have yet to tell me what her actual purpose is. Power means nothing if you dont have a purpose for using it.

[chlj1]

This is what's wrong with comics today in a nutshell: when the creative people don't take the creations as they were meant to be. Superheroes generally are dismissed as old fashioned, greasy kid stuff. Writers who fancy themselves as so much more sophisticated and clever than the people who created the brightly colored and patriotic characters. They have to be made deep, and since they really aren't as clever as they think they are, they reflexively turn to making them dark and gritty. Bring them all back down to earth.

This attitude is a guaranteed recipe for failure. It spoils the books. It needs to be entirely done away with.

Well said!! I agree with you 100%!! It was the reason I stopped buying comics for 15 years! I starting buying comics again because I was interested in the SM/WW relationship. So I started following the JL,SM and the WW series. But sadly I was very disappointed!! As it was when i stopped reading comics, the heroes are just as dark as the villains they fight! The different being the sides they fight on! For some reason writers think heroes have too be dark, heroes have to be on the edge of killing everybody or attacking everybody too be relatable!! The new twist added in the WW series, sexually harassment is Ok, I guess now it's the first step toward love. Being a God that feeds off of death and human suffering is great now!! Killer are the heroes in the comics and violence is a sign of love in today comics! They even made SM into doomsday for a short while, a vile thing, a threat to all life!! SM, fight too protect all life! They thought this would make him more relatable! Dark and violent make a heroes more relatable! That what their selling on tv and the movies! It must be ok!

[Silvanus]

Being a God that feeds off of death and human suffering is great now!!

I'm curious if anyone out there who has read much of Azzarello's run since issue 23 thinks Diana "feeds off of death and human suffering" and can point to places in this run where we see her doing that. I understand how this might be said of Ares and why people wold initially assume that this is what Diana as god of war would do, but I'd honestly like to know if anyone who has continued to read--even those who don't like the run overall--agree with this particular opinion. It seems to me like a number of those who have criticized the run bu kept reading say that its portrayal of Diana as a compassionate and merciful hero was a strength, though there were other major flaws. But again, I'm genuinely curious whether anyone who has kept reading the run agrees with those who say that the character has been portrayed as a bloodthirsty warmonger?

[Blacksun]

Just wanted to point out that all this god of war stuff not being something other writers can or will pick up on? Charles Soule has already used the concepts Azzarello introduced to solid effect in the pages of Superman/Wonder Woman. He even expanded on several of the concepts, adding in Diana's empathy and connection with soldiers (not telepathy, but a mystic link) and using the gods such as Apollo and the Smith to solid (if plot heavy) ends. He's also been able to introduce some older concepts like Doom's Doorway within the framework of Azzarello's setting with ease, without contradicting anything that has been done.

Actually, now that I think about it, the mystical connection with soldiers might not have been Soule, that might have been Pak, or possibly even Lobdell. It was the Doomed event and I didnt pay attention to what happened in which book. Diana and her role as the god of war was used to excellent effect in the pages of Batwoman as well. So that's at least two other creative teams (SM/WW and Batwoman) who have made good use of this current version, possibly more. The only other writer who handles Diana that comes to mind right now is Geoff Johns, and he's just ignored it completely. But its Johns and he ignores or revamps what doesnt work for him with impunity. Perhaps the only hope any of you have of getting the "old" Diana back is to have Johns take over the title and go on a Silver Age rehash. But given how he writes her in Justice League, the phrase "be careful what you wish for" comes to mind.

The fact that the movies are using the god origin for Diana is also a strong indicator that DC is sticking with Azzarello's treatment for the foreseeable future.

WW in batwoman was never God of war, it was really before she becomes god of war.

I didn't thought Soule did a good job with god of war, specially that he kicked it completely out of WW in the futures end one shots. I don't think he understand the character or the her role of god of war at all. that power to control soldiers was not thought very well, no wonder it was dropped later.

[Silvanus]

the First Born's [motivation] of wanting revenge for being cast out.

I would argue that revenge isn't exactly his motivation--at least not after his 7000 years of digging his way out of the bowels of the earth. Rage is a big part of his motivation, but it's not specifically revenge, because Zeus, is already gone, and the FB doesn't make revenge on Poseidon and Hades (the other gods who helped defeat him 7000 years ago) his first priority. He makes a deal wtih Poseidon, and though he surely intended to break that deal, he ends up only breaking the part of Hades and not the part about Poseidon himself.

So, he had other priorities--initially, his priority was fulfilling the prophecy, ruling Olympus and all the gods realms by himself, and generally venting his rage by inflicting suffering wherever he goes. After he's defeated in 23 and then tortured and burned by Apollo, though, his motivation is less about conquest and more about destruction and just pure nihilism for nihilism's sake. He has this dark revelation about himself: he is Nothing, and "only nothing lasts forever":

fb.jpg

It's almost like he's Anti-Life, from the Fourth World mythos.

[Gaelforce]

I'm curious if anyone out there who has read much of Azzarello's run since issue 23 thinks Diana "feeds off of death and human suffering" and can point to places in this run where we see her doing that. I understand how this might be said of Ares and why people wold initially assume that this is what Diana as god of war would do, but I'd honestly like to know if anyone who has continued to read--even those who don't like the run overall--agree with this particular opinion. It seems to me like a number of those who have criticized the run bu kept reading say that its portrayal of Diana as a compassionate and merciful hero was a strength, though there were other major flaws. But again, I'm genuinely curious whether anyone who has kept reading the run agrees with those who say that the character has been portrayed as a bloodthirsty warmonger?

There was no 'feeds off of death and human suffering,' nor was there anything in the run that says that's Diana as the god of war.

There also wasn't *any* definition as to what exactly it means to be 'god of war.' What are the roles, responsibilities, powers, etc. that go with the title?

Some of us wanted to know

[Silvanus]

There was no 'feeds off of death and human suffering,' nor was there anything in the run that says that's Diana as the god of war.

There also wasn't *any* definition as to what exactly it means to be 'god of war.' What are the roles, responsibilities, powers, etc. that go with the title?

Some of us wanted to know

Sure, I was curious about it, too, and this criticism holds more water than the "feeds off of death and human suffering" claim.

On the other hand, she refused the role altogether until issue 30, and it's been clear since issue 23 (when Hades says "you'll make an interesting god of war") they she wasn't likely to play the role Ares' way (which surely would not have included sparing the firstborn in that issue). She was going to have to define the role for herself. And why have her define the role in the last few issues, or even the last year? That would just have blocked the next team or teams form having the chance to define the role in a way that would work for their approach.

The one thing I think we can infer about her role as War with confidence is that she is supposed to lead the Olympians as their general in time of war; that's what Poseidon wants her for in issue 24, and it's what Artemis wants her for in issue 29, and its essentially what she does after that. She sends Artemis and Eros to Hell, for example; she's the general, and they take her orders.

Whatever else the role, as she defines it, will include, we will have to see in other runs. The other creators, if they want, can look to Ares' role and revise it: they can have drawn to war zones, as he was, though she would probably intervene to protect innocence and bring peace at those war zones; they can have her summon an army of old soldiers, as Ares did, although her crew of veterans might be more idealistic and less about war for war's sake; and they can have her teach a young warrior, like Ares thought her, though I'm pretty sure she's teach some different lessons, especially about mercy. So it's not like Azz left them with nothing.

[Dr. Poison]

Joker's motivation is to cause chaos: period. His insanity is what drives him. Batman is a bonus he's obssessed with. First Born's motivation isnt out of revenge, its out of taking back not only his birthright but to take over and subjugate the world out of hatred. His destiny led him to be a god of hatred and destruction and Azzarello implied that in his run. He's a nihilist. Now: some may like that and some may not but it is a clear and defined motivation and purpose.

Now: it takes power of various sorts to achieve the goals Joker or First Born wants. Power is a tool to get what you want or accomplish something. All youre telling me is that Cheetah wants power. What does she want to do with it? What is her end goal? You have yet to tell me what her actual purpose is. Power means nothing if you dont have a purpose for using it.

The Cheetah's greed and a lust for power is what drives her. What does she want to do with that power? Be able to hunt, kill, and take as she pleases.

So, now, how about that list of Cheetah stories you've read?

[Gaelforce]

Sure, I was curious about it, too, and this criticism holds more water than the "feeds off of death and human suffering" claim.

On the other hand, she refused the role altogether until issue 30, and it's been clear since issue 23 (when Hades says "you'll make an interesting god of war") they she wasn't likely to play the role Ares' way (which surely would not have included sparing the firstborn in that issue). She was going to have to define the role for herself. And why have her define the role in the last few issues, or even the last year? That would just have blocked the next team or teams form having the chance to define the role in a way that would work for their approach.

The one thing I think we can infer about her role as War with confidence is that she is supposed to lead the Olympians as their general in time of war; that's what Poseidon wants her for in issue 24, and it's what Artemis wants her for in issue 29, and its essentially what she does after that. She sends Artemis and Eros to Hell, for example; she's the general, and they take her orders.

Whatever else the role, as she defines it, will include, we will have to see in other runs. The other creators, if they want, can look to Ares' role and revise it: they can have drawn to war zones, as he was, though she would probably intervene to protect innocence and bring peace at those war zones; they can have her summon an army of old soldiers, as Ares did, although her crew of veterans might be more idealistic and less about war for war's sake; and they can have her teach a young warrior, like Ares thought her, though I'm pretty sure she's teach some different lessons, especially about mercy. So it's not like Azz left them with nothing.

I agree that it's hers to take and create and mold in her own fashion.

But we never found out what *any* of the gods really do. Did war follow Ares, or did Ares follow war? Does worship play into their existence? Do they have 'spheres of influence?' Hades rules the underworld, Poseidon rules the sea, but Apollo is the sun...yet show immense strength and durability. Ares could summon up dead warriors, can Diana?

One of the overall problems with Azzarello's run (from a superhero comic book perspective) is that he doesn't like to define anything or anyone in terms of powers. Everyone, including Diana, has whatever powers they need (or don't) depending upon the scene.

So Diana just got promoted from 'demi-god' to full on god of war, but we have no clue what that entails :/

[SteveGus]

But again, I'm genuinely curious whether anyone who has kept reading the run agrees with those who say that the character has been portrayed as a bloodthirsty warmonger?

The problem with a bloodthirsty Diana goes back to well before New 52, actually. Kingdom Come, again, seems to have been the start of it. Even though it wasn't any more supposed to be continuity than Dark Knight was, it managed to leak into the main title with unfortunate results. Rucka then set up Diana as the hero whose ethos allowed her to kill her enemies, making her inherently more violent than Superman or Batman. Again, Rucka seemed to be writing a backstory for Kingdom Come Diana, not the Diana of Jimenez or Perez.

Now comes Azzarello, and she's somehow absorbed the essence of (what ought to be) her worst enemy and become the masculine god of war. She's always got an edged weapon, uses it before the lasso or her fists, and can summon them at will. What any of this means was not very well fleshed out by Azzarello. He seems the type to make sweeping changes and then let someone else figure out the details.

Ares has always been empowered by war and carnage, and Diana is now Ares. I can easily imagine better writers who make the effort to do the exposition portraying her as having to constantly struggle against her inner bloodlust. This will be unbearably awful to read. And Azzarello will be to blame. He has achieved his goal of corrupting her spirit.