View Poll Results: Is The Overemphasis On The Character's Warrior Facets Detrimental

Voters
36. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    29 80.56%
  • No

    7 19.44%
Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 55
  1. #16
    Astonishing Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    2,249

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Vanguard-01 View Post
    First Born? See my first post. Any attempt to talk down a monster like him isn't Diana being compassionate or peaceful.
    It's Diana being idealistic. One of Diana's ideals is that you don't assume that any living, sentient being--let alone your sibling--is irreedemable. Even if everything in the world suggests that someone will always make the evil decision, you give them a chance to prove that "certainty" wrong. That's what she did with Hera, even though, by the second year of the run, she knew a fair bit about Hera's long history of evil acts. In issue 23, she'd known the First Born for about four days (during three of which she'd been unconscious), and based on that knowledge she shouldn't have offered him a chance to surrender?

    It's Diana being blind, stupid, and/or insane.
    Idealists often look "blind, stupid, and/or insane" because they're trying to live up to unrealistic standards of behavior. Hades see Diana that way; he says loving everyone is ridiculous. But Heph suggests that it's ridiculous to Hades because he's not capable of it. I suppose I'm not capable of loving everyone either, or of offering monsters redemption--but I like that Diana is "ridiculous" in that way; she's ridiculously good!

    Cassandra, she had no choice on. Cassandra had a hostage and would've killed someone Diana cared about if she didn't stop fighting.
    That's a choice. Do I save Milan by not only ending the fight but giving up the information Cassandra wants, or do I fight on and refuse to jeopardize Olympus, come what may (which is what Milan himself says she should have done, by the way)? A lot of pure warriors--and even soldiers in modern armies--would make the latter decision. In war, casualties happen, and sometimes civilians get caught in the middle; warriors do what they can to prevent to casualties, but they don't typically compromise mission objectives or give up critical information to avoid casualties--unless, like Wonder Woman, they are more than merely warriors.

    Soule did the same thing when Diana negotiated a truce between her and Zod when he and Faora had Superman hostage.
    Good for Soule. But if we're thinking of the same scene, Diana was beating Faora while Zod was beating Superman, and Zod and Diana mutually agreed to a ceasefire that each saw as a tactical necessity. But would Zod have given up critical information event to save Faora (the way Diana gives up the First Born's location to save Milan)? It's possible, since Zod seems to have real feelings for Faora; but it's also very possible that Zod, while trying his best to save Faora in the fight, would have refused to compromise his mission even for her sake. Pure warriors are often uncomporomising in just that way.

    Hades? She had no choice but to negotiate with him. He had her completely helpless and could've killed her with the greatest of ease. She couldn't have solved that problem with violence. She already tried. She got her ass kicked (again.)
    She could have walked away if she let Hades keep Zola and Zeke. Granted, a true warrior might not have done that either; it wouldn't have been honorable. Instead, a warrior might have fought on, hoping Hermes would prove able to spirit them all away. It might not even occur to such a warrior to make a deal, and they certainly might refuse to give the adversary a weapon he could use to inflict a fate worse than death, like "loving" Hades. The way I see it, Diana had a good inkling what was coming when Heph handed her Eros' gun; that's why she smiled in that knowing way in that panel. She was prepared to trade herself for Zola--not a warrior's solution.

    Hera was petty and cruel. Not nearly as "monstrous" as a genocidal cannibal god. Hera, at her worst, never tried to destroy the entire world just for spite. She only punishes people who have somehow wronged her. Don't want to get hurt by Hera? Don't piss her off. Don't want to get eaten by the First Born? Don't exist on the same plane of reality as him
    Oh, of course the First Born is much more evil than Hera ever was. But Hera's actions were bad enough that she could easily have looked like someone who didn't even deserve the chance to surrender, let alone a shot at redemption. She looked that way to many readers. But Diana is idealistic enough to believe that everyone deserves, at the very least, a chance to surrender. Again, in issue 34 she insists on Cassandra getting a chance to redeem herself.

    Cassandra was already broken beyond repair by that point. Letting Hera kill her (or killing her herself) would've been the act of mercy at that point.
    A lot of warriors would probably agree with you. But I like that Diana is idealistic enough and peaceful enough to spare her life and hold out the improbably possibility of redemption even for her.

    Her effort to reform Hades was a complete and utter failure, so I hardly count it any great achievement of hers.
    Whether it was "a complete and utter failure" or whether Hades just needed more time to find his way after getting this opening, she is, by even trying, being a warrior (firing a weapon) for peace (giving her enemy a chance to develop a more loving, peaceful heard).
    Last edited by Silvanus; 01-28-2015 at 08:29 AM.

  2. #17
    They LAUGHED at my theory SteveGus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    689

    Default

    I've always thought that the militant Kingdom Come Diana tended to replace the Perez Diana, especially during the Rucka run. Perez's Diana was resolutely upbeat and optimistic even in the face of grave perils, and the better Loebs stories like Space Pyrates showed that. So did other writers like in the annual with Jesse Quick. She had a consistent personality that was relatively easy to grasp.

    But KC portrayed Diana as an embittered woman who was charged with an impossible task and inevitably failed. The Rucka run, essentially a constant recycling of Hiketeia themes, gave us a Diana charged with impossible tasks and showed her back constantly against the wall until she undertook a series of drastic solutions. The Rucka run was, I always thought, the backstory of the KC Diana rather than a continuation of the Perez Diana. Hiketeia was interesting, but rather wide of the mark as a depiction of the character.

    Since Rucka, we've gotten a succession of more warlike and militant versions of Diana, culminating with the degrading merger with her worst enemy and having the mantle of "God" of War forced on her. This, and the degradation of the Amazons, have turned her into something other than the character I was a fan of.
    "At what point do we say, 'You're mucking with our myths'?" - Harlan Ellison

  3. #18
    BANNED
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    6,590

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Agent Z View Post
    I've been wondering if maybe writers get too caught up in Diana's warrior aspects and focus too much on this, while ignoring other facets of her character. The Embassy is gone, she's now the Goddess of War and the Amazons have none of the reverence for intellectual, spiritual and artistic pursuits. I've heard some blame this on Perez for taking away the futuristic tech, but he still showed them as philosophers, artists, musicians etc. Plus Jiminez returned their tech in his run.
    It's not Perez. it is Waid on Kingdom Come

  4. #19
    Extraordinary Member Vanguard-01's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    8,441

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Silvanus View Post
    It's Diana being idealistic. One of Diana's ideals is that you don't assume that any living, sentient being--let alone your sibling--is irreedemable. Even if everything in the world suggests that someone will always make the evil decision, you give them a chance to prove that "certainty" wrong. That's what she did with Hera, even though, by the second year of the run, she knew a fair bit about Hera's long history of evil acts. In issue 23, she'd known the First Born for about four days (during three of which she'd been unconscious), and based on that knowledge she shouldn't have offered him a chance to surrender?
    She just arrived in the middle of an entire city he'd pretty much levelled. Countless innocent people were likely dead. Countless more were no doubt running for their lives and/or being hunted for sport.

    Now is not the time for being idealistic. Now is the time to put this monster down.

    Idealists often look "blind, stupid, and/or insane" because they're trying to live up to unrealistic standards of behavior. Hades see Diana that way; he says loving everyone is ridiculous. But Heph suggests that it's ridiculous to Hades because he's not capable of it. I suppose I'm not capable of loving everyone either, or of offering monsters redemption--but I like that Diana is "ridiculous" in that way; she's ridiculously good!
    So ridiculously good that she failed utterly at redeeming him.

    And she emphatically did not love Strife or FB in that story. That whole statement fell flat on its face by the end of this story.

    That's a choice. Do I save Milan by not only ending the fight but giving up the information Cassandra wants, or do I fight on and refuse to jeopardize Olympus, come what may (which is what Milan himself says she should have done, by the way)? A lot of pure warriors--and even soldiers in modern armies--would make the latter decision. In war, casualties happen, and sometimes civilians get caught in the middle; warriors do what they can to prevent to casualties, but they don't typically compromise mission objectives or give up critical information to avoid casualties--unless, like Wonder Woman, they are more than merely warriors.
    Soldiers go to great lengths to rescue their buddies because they care about them. "Leave no man behind" is a common military motto.

    If Diana didn't care about Milan, she may have been less inclined to give in. You don't have to be a warrior of peace to make a sacrifice for someone you care about. Anti-heroes still have people they care about and will make sacrifices to keep them safe.

    Do you watch Constantine? He just agreed to basically be a magical errand boy for Felix Faust, because Faust had the soul of Constantine's best friend's daughter. Oh, John was planning to find a way to beat Faust, but for the time being Faust could've snuffed an innocent girl's soul anytime he wanted, so Constantine caved and gave Faust what he wanted.

    If John freaking Constantine can do what Diana did in that issue, it's not saying that much about Diana's morality or her commitment to solving problems peacefully.

    Good for Soule. But if we're thinking of the same scene, Diana was beating Faora while Zod was beating Superman, and Zod and Diana mutually agreed to a ceasefire that each saw as a tactical necessity. But would Zod have given up critical information event to save Faora (the way Diana gives up the First Born's location to save Milan)? It's possible, since Zod seems to have real feelings for Faora; but it's also very possible that Zod, while trying his best to save Faora in the fight, would have refused to compromise his mission even for her sake. Pure warriors are often uncomporomising in just that way.
    As you say: Zod cares about Faora. If he did give up some important information in order to save her, then that would put him on the same moral standing as Diana in the issue we're talking about. Likewise, if Diana gave Zod important information in order to save Superman, that would be the same thing. It's two people making sacrifices to protect someone they care about. Only sociopaths wouldn't make that choice.

    She could have walked away if she let Hades keep Zola and Zeke. Granted, a true warrior might not have done that either; it wouldn't have been honorable. Instead, a warrior might have fought on, hoping Hermes would prove able to spirit them all away. It might not even occur to such a warrior to make a deal, and they certainly might refuse to give the adversary a weapon he could use to inflict a fate worse than death, like "loving" Hades. The way I see it, Diana had a good inkling what was coming when Heph handed her Eros' gun; that's why she smiled in that knowing way in that panel. She was prepared to trade herself for Zola--not a warrior's solution.
    A warrior is more than willing to give him/herself up to protect a loved one. Dying for a cause is part of most warrior cultures.

    And if Diana already knew what was coming, that wasn't much of a sacrifice, now was it?

    Oh, of course the First Born is much more evil than Hera ever was. But Hera's actions were bad enough that she could easily have looked like someone who didn't even deserve the chance to surrender, let alone a shot at redemption. She looked that way to many readers. But Diana is idealistic enough to believe that everyone deserves, at the very least, a chance to surrender. Again, in issue 34 she insists on Cassandra getting a chance to redeem herself.
    First? Diana didn't offer Hera a chance to surrender or redeem herself. She refused to kill a now-powerless woman out of revenge. Seems legit.....until you stop and remember that part where Diana openly admits that she's keeping Hera safe and alive because she hopes to use her to restore her sisters and her mother.

    Diana didn't spare Hera out of mercy. She spared her out of pragmatism. "This chick might be useful to me later. I'll keep her safe for now."

    It was really more Zola who redeemed Hera. Diana actually didn't interact with her much beyond that one little pep talk she gave her.

    A lot of warriors would probably agree with you. But I like that Diana is idealistic enough and peaceful enough to spare her life and hold out the improbably possibility of redemption even for her.
    Yes, idealistic.

    So idealistic she thinks that letting a broken woman remain in a state of utter wretchedness is a good idea. So idealistic that she thinks that allowing this people-eating monster to run free and possibly kill and eat other people is more important than doing what Cassandra would probably have preferred herself, had she had enough of a mind left to offer an opinion. Hey! Who knows? Maybe Cassandra will eat the right person and magically become sane again!

    Whether it was "a complete and utter failure" or whether Hades just needed more time to find his way after getting this opening, she is, by even trying, being a warrior (firing a weapon) for peace (giving her enemy a chance to develop a more loving, peaceful heard).
    And nothing came of it, so one can't help but question just how much stock Azz puts in Diana's "warrior for peace" aspect.
    Last edited by Vanguard-01; 01-28-2015 at 02:25 PM.
    Though much is taken, much abides; and though
    We are not now that strength which in old days
    Moved earth and heaven, that which we are, we are,
    One equal temper of heroic hearts,
    Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will
    To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.

    --Lord Alfred Tennyson--

  5. #20
    Astonishing Member DochaDocha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    4,634

    Default

    Yes (ten char).

  6. #21
    Invincible Member numberthirty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    24,858

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Vanguard-01 View Post
    First? Diana didn't offer Hera a chance to surrender or redeem herself. She refused to kill a now-powerless woman out of revenge. Seems legit.....until you stop and remember that part where Diana openly admits that she's keeping Hera safe and alive because she hopes to use her to restore her sisters and her mother.
    You're going to want to reread issue thirty-four. Either you missed something completely or it's slipped your mind.

  7. #22
    Mighty Member
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    The north.
    Posts
    1,386

    Default

    I prefer her character being a balance of warrior/lover, with a focus on the latter. I think Azzarello & Chiang did a great job on this with the "hard love" type. Strong with a strong heart.

    Out of the older WWs I probably like Perez the most.

  8. #23
    Astonishing Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    2,249

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Vanguard-01 View Post
    She just arrived in the middle of an entire city he'd pretty much levelled. Countless innocent people were likely dead. Countless more were no doubt running for their lives and/or being hunted for sport.
    I assumed that one reason she asked for surrender was that "countless more people were no doubt running for their lives"; a peaceful surrender, however unlikely, would have been safer for bystanders than a violent clash.

    Now is not the time for being idealistic. Now is the time to put this monster down.
    Well, that's certainly what a through-and-through, dyed-in-the-wool warrior would say. And Wonder Woman comes close to saying it. Surrender or "I will not hesitate" to put you down, she says. Of course, as the First Born points out, by saying those words, she already hesitated. She's not the kind of warrior who puts a sentient being down without offering a chance to surrender--he exploits that, but the lesson she learns is not she should have put him down, but that she never should have taken off the cuffs; she's not going to be to able to match this monstrous warrior, the First Born, brutality for brutality, ("like two storms clashing," as Ares says). She stops him via a loving sacrifice.

    Call her stupid if you want, but it's a "stupidity" that comes from wanting peace, not war, and it's not the way that someone who's nothing but a warrior thinks. That kind of warrior would have killed the First Born at the end of 23, instead of declaring that "there has been enough killing today."

    So ridiculously good that she failed utterly at redeeming him.
    To be good, ridiculously or otherwise, doesn't mean you can always change everyone.

    And she emphatically did not love Strife or FB in that story. That whole statement fell flat on its face by the end of this story.
    "Tough love," as she puts it in issue 35. Seriously, though, she believes in and lives by the principle "love thy neighbor," where "neighbor" means "everyone." That doesn't mean that she can never be angry or dislike anyone.

    Soldiers go to great lengths to rescue their buddies because they care about them. "Leave no man behind" is a common military motto.
    Yeah, it sure is, but try using that as a defense at a court martial after giving up state secrets to ransom a hostage.

    If John freaking Constantine can do what Diana did in that issue, it's not saying that much about Diana's morality or her commitment to solving problems peacefully.
    It's not that any one act is "saying that much"; it's a whole pattern of behavior. You acknowledge the examples of Siracca and Artemis; you may not find any of these other examples convincing alone, but when you put them all together, it's quite clear that war for war's sake is not what this hero is about.

    And if Diana already knew what was coming, that wasn't much of a sacrifice, now was it?
    It was a tremendous risk; she could have ended up married to Hades, which would have been a lot worse than death.

    First? Diana didn't offer Hera a chance to surrender or redeem herself. She refused to kill a now-powerless woman out of revenge.
    She did more than refuse to kill her. She showed her respect and hospitality. Someone else might have confined her and threatened her. Her example and her advice helps Hera change her ways.

    So idealistic she thinks that letting a broken woman remain in a state of utter wretchedness is a good idea. So idealistic that she thinks that allowing this people-eating monster to run free and possibly kill and eat other people is more important than doing what Cassandra would probably have preferred herself, had she had enough of a mind left to offer an opinion. Hey! Who knows? Maybe Cassandra will eat the right person and magically become sane again!
    Yes--sparing her life in the hope that somehow she can benefit from a second chance is idealistic. Are you really saying that Diana deems someone in a "broken woman," Diana should let that person be killed in anger, after she has already been defeated? Would you really want Diana to give up on her just because she has lost her sanity? (Incidentally, Diana has no way of knowing about the cannibalism that the FB tricked the starving Cassndra into.)
    Last edited by Silvanus; 01-28-2015 at 02:38 PM.

  9. #24
    The Comixeur Mel Dyer's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    3,157

    Default

    I like Wonder Woman's warrior heritage out front, ..but, shown in the context of Amazon training.

    Marston's Amazon training elements (loving submission and all that) have recently, too often, been overshadowed by the violent, bloody spectacle of media phenoms, like Xena: Warrior Princess, Buffy The Vampire Slayer and the Tomb Raider, Resident Evil and Lord Of The Rings films. I can even site Tim Burton's bloodthirsty, psychotic Catwoman in Batman Returns, as contributing to a trend that's created an appetite, for good or ill, for super-violent action heroines in books (mostly the comics), film and television. Lastly, it's a trend that even a Wonder Woman cannot and will not escape.

    Not gonna happen.

    What's needed, now, are writers, who know how to frame her newly sensational warrior aspects, in the context of Dr. Marston's utopian standard for his beloved Amazon. It's going to take writers, who know and care enough about Wonder Woman and her unique mythos and history, and what she means to the world - the REAL one, we live in - to distinguish her among the Xena and Buffy clones and wannabees. We need creators, who know Wonder Woman well enough to make her unique brand of compassionate butt-kicking, neck-breaking and dismemberment, interesting to readers, who don't really know or appreciate her, as Marston originally intended us to. Distinguishing Wonder Woman among them, I think, by gradually replacing some of the violence with the peculiarities of Diana's Amazon training, is the best we can hope for.

    Bullets n'bracelets is the best example, ..but, what else is Amazon training good for?

    What's so great about it? Could it allow Wonder Woman to use the same wind currents, she once glided on, as a weapon, ..enough to disable or cripple a powerful opponent? Are there other arcane tricks, known ONLY to the Amazons, that stand-in for loping off demons' heads or breaking the necks of alien masterminds? Could she employ the Amazons' unique knowledge of trans-dimensional travel in hand-to-hand combat, moving or shifting in and out of the fabric of the universe to gain the upper hand in a brutal, bone-crunching brawl, with Darkseid, perhaps?

    Furthermore, it should be enforced by the editors that ONLY Wonder Woman and her sisters, through and because of their unique Amazon training, can do some of these bizarre and seemingly improbable things! Without editorial mandate, we may as well get used to Wonder Woman being one more generic, female killing machine. If Superman, Supergirl and even BATMAN can do the same things she can, even WITH Amazon training, it's a waste of time, having it in the WW comic, at all. If it doesn't distinguish her, as Superman's heat vision distinguishes him and the Kryptonians, it's absolutely pointless!

    Ultimately, it should result in significantly LESS hardcore violence, ..but, I think that no matter how you address it, the violence isn't going anywhere. Get used to it.

    Anyone, naive enough to think that Wonder Woman is going to go back to being a kanga-riding happy warrior and harmless quasi-dominatrix - and still be selling comics - is in for a Robot Plane-load of disappointment.
    Last edited by Mel Dyer; 01-28-2015 at 03:41 PM. Reason: clarity
    COMBINING THE BIGBADITUDE OF THANOS WITH CHEETAH'S FEROCITY, IS JANUS WONDER WOMAN'S GREATEST SUPERVILLAIN?...on WONDABUNGA!!! Look alive, Kangaliers!

  10. #25
    Extraordinary Member Vanguard-01's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    8,441

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Silvanus View Post
    Well, that's certainly what a through-and-through, dyed-in-the-wool warrior would say. And Wonder Woman comes close to saying it. Surrender or "I will not hesitate" to put you down, she says. Of course, as the First Born points out, by saying those words, she already hesitated. She's not the kind of warrior who puts a sentient being down without offering a chance to surrender--he exploits that, but the lesson she learns is not she should have put him down, but that she never should have taken off the cuffs; she's not going to be to able to match this monstrous warrior, the First Born, brutality for brutality, ("like two storms clashing," as Ares says). She stops him via a loving sacrifice.
    She stops him via lame plot contrivance.

    Can't beat him with her full power? Why, then she'll beat him with HALF her power and a poke in the chest! Brilliant!

    Call her stupid if you want, but it's a "stupidity" that comes from wanting peace, not war, and it's not the way that someone who's nothing but a warrior thinks. That kind of warrior would have killed the First Born at the end of 23, instead of declaring that "there has been enough killing today."
    "Warrior" does not mean "Murder Machine." Plenty of warriors would see no honor in killing a foe who could no longer defend himself.

    "Tough love," as she puts it in issue 35. Seriously, though, she believes in and lives by the principle "love thy neighbor," where "neighbor" means "everyone." That doesn't mean that she can never be angry or dislike anyone.
    There is nothing remotely loving about dooming a person to another 7000 years of torment. The first seven millennia didn't teach him anything. Another seven won't either. Once again, it would've been more compassionate to just kill him. Compassionate to him for ending the torment of his life and compassionate to the innocent people who will suffer the day he eventually breaks free again.

    Yeah, it sure is, but try using that as a defense at a court martial after giving up state secrets to ransom a hostage.
    "State secrets?" The location of another enemy you actually want to see destroyed is a "state secret?"

    Diana told one enemy where she could find another enemy. I would've done the same thing. Then I'd sit back and hope they destroy each other and save me the trouble.

    It's not that any one act is "saying that much"; it's a whole pattern of behavior. You acknowledge the examples of Siracca and Artemis; you may not find any of these other examples convincing alone, but when you put them all together, it's quite clear that war for war's sake is not what this hero is about.
    Being a warrior for peace isn't what she's about either. She's a pragmatist who does what seems appropriate at the time.

    It was a tremendous risk; she could have ended up married to Hades, which would have been a lot worse than death.
    But according to you, she knew she'd be fine. Not much of a risk.

    She did more than refuse to kill her. She showed her respect and hospitality. Someone else might have confined her and threatened her. Her example and her advice helps Hera change her ways.
    No, for the most part, Diana just avoided speaking to Hera except for that little pep talk.

    So, she didn't lock her up and threaten her? Yeah? Diana was hoping to convince Hera to restore her mom and sisters. To do that, Hera needs her powers back. You really think Diana didn't think that mistreating Hera and then helping her get her powers back might not exactly motivate Hera to grant Diana's request? Heck, if Diana mistreated her, Hera probably would've just turned her newly-regained powers on Diana and turned HER into a snake or whatever.

    Once again: pragmatism.

    Yes--sparing her life in the hope that somehow she can benefit from a second chance is idealistic. Are you really saying that Diana deems someone in a "broken woman," Diana should let that person be killed in anger, after she has already been defeated?
    Even if Diana doesn't want to kill her? Letting her run free is sure as Hell not going to help her get better anyway. Cassandra isn't going to just get better because Diana hopes she will. And in the meantime, while Diana is just sitting around waiting for Cassandra to magically recover from being an animal, who knows how many innocent people will die at Cassandra's hands?

    Would you really want Diana to give up on her just because she has lost her sanity? (Incidentally, Diana has no way of knowing about the cannibalism that the FB tricked the starving Cassndra into.)
    Cassandra lost WAY more than "merely" her sanity.

    And the First Born didn't "trick" Cassandra into cannibalism. She knew full well what she was about to eat. There was no other meat anywhere near the mountain after FB was done with it. And then, there's the small matter that by the time it was over, living sentient flesh was pretty much the ONLY thing Cassandra was interested in eating anymore. Another good reason to not let her run free.

    Diana doesn't need to know Cassandra is a cannibal. She just needs to know that she's a violent, dangerous lunatic who kills people while laughing about it. You don't let someone like that just go. You put her down (again, Cassandra would probably have preferred this), or you lock her up and try to get her some help.
    Though much is taken, much abides; and though
    We are not now that strength which in old days
    Moved earth and heaven, that which we are, we are,
    One equal temper of heroic hearts,
    Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will
    To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.

    --Lord Alfred Tennyson--

  11. #26
    Astonishing Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    2,249

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Vanguard-02
    "Warrior" does not mean "Murder Machine." Plenty of warriors would see no honor in killing a foe who could no longer defend himself.
    That's true, I suppose (though in this case, many would see it as simply finishing off an honorable victory that had already been accomplished). But the Ares of issue 0 is the one who sums up the warrior ethos for purposes of Azz's run, and he says in no uncertain terms that a warrior must not suffer an enemy to live. And anyway what are we saying if we say there is too much focus on the warrior aspect? Wouldn't we be saying, in part, that she is too willing to kill? After losing Lennox and having to sacrifice Ares, the impression she leaves by saying there had been enough killing already is that she is quite reluctant to kill.

    Quote Originally Posted by Vanguard-01 View Post
    "State secrets?" The location of another enemy you actually want to see destroyed is a "state secret?"

    Diana told one enemy where she could find another enemy. I would've done the same thing. Then I'd sit back and hope they destroy each other and save me the trouble.
    Cassandra didn't want to destroy the First Born; she wanted to save him and help him destroy Olympus.

    Being a warrior for peace isn't what she's about either. She's a pragmatist who does what seems appropriate at the time.
    You yourself have argued that sparing Cassandra and offering mercy to the First Born were impractical to the point of being "stupid" or "insane." In the last issue, she sums up the principle that guides her to do such strange and un-pragmatic things.: the principle of love and submission, or faith in the strength of others.

    But according to you, she knew she'd be fine. Not much of a risk.
    I didn't mean she knew everything that would happen; I meant that she guessed the purpose of giving her the gun: Hades would try to use it to keep her in place of Zola.

    No, for the most part, Diana just avoided speaking to Hera except for that little pep talk.
    You credit Zola for helping Hera, but it's Diana who tells Zola, in 13, that she'd never let a friend kill someone. And in 13, she tells Hera she'll be treated as queen and suggests that she order room service; of course she's being pragmatic as a leader who needs to keep order in her little "army," but she's also showing empathy and sensitivity. And around issue 25, she takes the time to ask Hera what the experience of becoming mortal has meant to her.

    Even if Diana doesn't want to kill her? Letting her run free is sure as Hell not going to help her get better anyway
    Who said she was going to let her run free? She only asked Hera to spare her life; she didn't say anything about releasing her.

    And the First Born didn't "trick" Cassandra into cannibalism. She knew full well what she was about to eat. There was no other meat anywhere near the mountain after FB was done with it.
    This whole issue is admittedly beside the point of whether there's too much emphasis on Diana's warrior role. But Casssandra was literally starving; she wasn't thinking about where the First Born might have done his grocery shopping. And her shock when she's told what and who she has eaten was clear; it sickens her.
    Last edited by Silvanus; 01-28-2015 at 06:46 PM.

  12. #27
    Extraordinary Member Vanguard-01's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    8,441

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Silvanus View Post
    That's true, I suppose (though in this case, many would see it as simply finishing off an honorable victory that had already been accomplished). But the Ares of issue 0 is the one who sums up the warrior ethos for purposes of Azz's run, and he says in no uncertain terms that a warrior must not suffer an enemy to live. And anyway what are we saying if we say there is too much focus on the warrior aspect? Aren't we saying, in part, that she is too willing to kill? After losing Lennox and having to sacrifice Ares, the impression she leaves by saying there had been enough killing already is that she is quite reluctant to kill.
    When I say "Too much focus on the warrior aspect," I'm talking about her general affinity for bloodshed and violence. Her being willing to kill is part of the problem, but that's not the whole picture. In general it's all about her obsession with fighting.

    And that statement by Ares is HIS definition of what a warrior should be about. That's it. It's not a universal blanket statement about what the word "warrior" means in the DCU.

    Cassandra didn't want to destroy the First Born; she wanted to save him and help him destroy Olympus.
    And Diana had Hermes on her side. Hermes can get her and her troops to Olympus faster than Cassandra's airship could. It was a minor sacrifice that saved someone she cared about. It's not like she bowed down to Cassandra and formally surrendered herself and her entire army into her custody.

    You yourself have argued that sparing Cassandra and offering mercy to the First Born were impractical to the point of being "stupid" or "insane." In the last issue, she sums up the principle that guides her to do such strange and un-pragmatic things.: the principle of love and submission, or faith in the strength of others.
    Talk is cheap.

    Sparing the First Born was also a pragmatic decision. She wanted to kill him. But she turned him over to Apollo as part of a deal to get something that she wanted from him. Diana didn't spare FB out of mercy. She used him as a bargaining chip.

    Saving Cassandra was "stupid" because letting a dangerous lunatic run free is being reckless with other people's lives. Diana's supposed to save people. Not release a monster in their midst.

    I didn't mean she knew everything that would happen; I meant that she guessed the purpose of giving her the gun: Hades would try to use it to keep her in place of Zola.
    So, she was still willing to sacrifice herself to save an innocent woman and her even more innocent (we thought) baby. Once again? She had no choice but to take this gambit. She tried taking Hades on with violence and got her ass kicked. Negotiation was her last remaining option. If she wanted to save Zola, that was her only option.

    You credit Zola for helping Hera, but it's Diana who tells Zola, in 13, that she'd never let a friend kill someone. And in 13, she tells Hera she'll be treated as queen and suggests that she order room service; of course she's being pragmatic as a leader who needs to keep order in her little "army," but she's also showing empathy and sensitivity. And around issue 25, she takes the time to ask Hera what the experience of becoming mortal has meant to her.
    Diana tells Hera she'll be treated like a Queen and offers her room service. This is called "buttering her up." This is a blatant effort to curry favor with Hera, so that when Diana helps Hera get her powers back, Hera will be more inclined to be generous to Diana. Once again: if Diana treated Hera like crap, Hera would NEVER agree to help her once she regains her powers.

    That's showing empathy and sensitivity because showing anything less won't get Hera to give her what she wants.

    Who said she was going to let her run free? She only asked Hera to spare her life; she didn't say anything about releasing her.
    If Diana had turned to Random Amazon #3 and told her to restrain Cassandra and take her to some medical facility, that may have been a different story. Of course, then again, I'm convinced that Azz's Amazons don't even know what a "medical facility" is.

    We don't see Cassandra again after that scene. In fact she was spoken about later, and it sounds like she's still at large. If Diana had plans to do something other than release her into the wild, then that plan (like just about ALL of her plans in this story) apparently failed miserably.

    This whole issue is admittedly beside the point of whether there's too much emphasis on Diana's warrior role. But Casssandra was literally starving; she wasn't thinking about where the First Born might have done his grocery shopping. And her shock when she's told what and who she has eaten was clear; it sickens her.
    It sickens her. For about five seconds. Then suddenly she's actively SEEKING sentient flesh to eat.
    Though much is taken, much abides; and though
    We are not now that strength which in old days
    Moved earth and heaven, that which we are, we are,
    One equal temper of heroic hearts,
    Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will
    To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.

    --Lord Alfred Tennyson--

  13. #28
    Astonishing Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    2,249

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Vanguard-01
    In general it's all about her obsession with fighting.
    Other than in the sparring and training that's so valued in Amazon culture, where in Diana's actions or words do you see this obsession? When she stabs Strife's hand, for instance? If she was obsessed with fighting, why, after what Stride did to the Amaozns, did she not fight with her until she saw a threat to Zola? Or do you see this obsession in her fighting with Hades' forces before trying to bargain with him? They attacked her, not the other way around; her goal was to get in, find Zola, and leave. Or, is there evidence of this obsession in the infamous Orion clutch? If she were obsessed with fighting, she probably would have punched him first, or right after the kiss-and-grab, rather than giving him a chance to shape up. The centaurs? They were zombies who were attacking her friend; do you think she should have tied to reason with them?

    Quote Originally Posted by Vanguard-01 View Post
    Sparing the First Born was also a pragmatic decision. She wanted to kill him. But she turned him over to Apollo as part of a deal to get something that she wanted from him. Diana didn't spare FB out of mercy. She used him as a bargaining chip.
    What? We see no contact between Diana and Apollo in 23; we only see her telling Hades that there's been enough killing. In 24, Apollo thanks her for turning the prisoner over; but no one mentions a quid pro quo. Diana offers to serve as god of war in exchange for the restoration of Hera, but when Apollo turns this offer down, she never says or implies that they had a prior deal involving the First Born.

    If Diana had turned to Random Amazon #3 and told her to restrain Cassandra and take her to some medical facility, that may have been a different story.
    I can't get check because Comixology won't open for me right now, but isn't she still frozen in crystal when we last saw her?

    In fact she was spoken about later, and it sounds like she's still at large.
    Really? When?

  14. #29
    Invincible Member numberthirty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    24,858

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Vanguard-01 View Post
    We don't see Cassandra again after that scene. In fact she was spoken about later, and it sounds like she's still at large.
    None of this happened.

    Cassandra gets smacked into a wall just before Diana/Zola/Zeke/Hermes head to Mount Olympus. The entirety of issue thirty-five takes place on Mount Olympus.

  15. #30
    Extraordinary Member Vanguard-01's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    8,441

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Silvanus View Post
    Other than in the sparring and training that's so valued in Amazon culture, where in Diana's actions or words do you see this obsession? When she stabs Strife's hand, for instance? If she was obsessed with fighting, why, after what Stride did to the Amaozns, did she not fight with her until she saw a threat to Zola? Or do you see this obsession in her fighting with Hades' forces before trying to bargain with him? They attacked her, not the other way around; her goal was to get in, find Zola, and leave. Or, is there evidence of this obsession in the infamous Orion clutch? If she were obsessed with fighting, she probably would have punched him first, or right after the kiss-and-grab, rather than giving him a chance to shape up. The centaurs? They were zombies who were attacking her friend; do you think she should have tied to reason with them?
    Strife's hand? Perfectly fine with that. Strife killed her sisters and she was actively threatening a pregnant woman. Plus Diana knew perfectly well that that stab wouldn't cause Strife any lasting harm.

    Hades' forces? Show of hands! Who here really thinks that Diana actually thought she could intrude in Hades' domain without being detected?

    The Orion clutch? That was a statement of Diana's obsession with violence and disproportionate responses, if not fighting. Orion used words. He said some things she didn't like. She responded by threatening him with permanent mutilation and actually assaulted him physically. I do believe as children most of us are taught that whole "Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me" thing? I would've made allowances if Orion had gone to some kind of particular verbal low like mocking Hippolyta and/or the Amazon's predicament, but just one more annoying pickup line and a wink? Totally disproportionate response.

    The centaurs? Nope.

    I'm not saying Azz's run was a great example of Diana's warrior aspect being overused. Johns is the worst perpetrator of this trend at this time. But Azz's run was hardly an example of the super-enlightened peace-loving Wonder Woman we all want to see either.

    What? We see no contact between Diana and Apollo in 23; we only see her telling Hades that there's been enough killing. In 24, Apollo thanks her for turning the prisoner over; but no one mentions a quid pro quo. Diana offers to serve as god of war in exchange for the restoration of Hera, but when Apollo turns this offer down, she never says or implies that they had a prior deal involving the First Born.
    Note how Diana doesn't dispute Apollo's claim that she handed FB over to him? I somehow doubt she did that out of some sense of duty to her Olympian family. The First Born was Diana's ticket to an audience with Apollo, which was Step One in her "master plan" to restore Hera's powers. Another plan that fails utterly, I might add.

    I can't get check because Comixology won't open for me right now, but isn't she still frozen in crystal when we last saw her?
    Hm. Can't find my copy right now, either (not that I'm looking all that hard.)

    So, maybe.

    Either way, that's not exactly a good solution to the problem now, either, is it? Keeping her frozen in crstal isn't going to fix her broken brain either. Keeping her frozen in stasis is no better than just letting her run free, if you're trying to sell me on Diana's compassion.

    Really? When?
    Forget who's doing the talking, but it was one of the gods asking about "Cassandra the Mad."
    Though much is taken, much abides; and though
    We are not now that strength which in old days
    Moved earth and heaven, that which we are, we are,
    One equal temper of heroic hearts,
    Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will
    To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.

    --Lord Alfred Tennyson--

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •