Diana As God of War

[Silvanus]

If the purpose of war is to end conflicts, the God of War should therefore excel at warfare, it should have the power to help turn the tides of war, maybe create an army of soldiers out of thin air.

Ares in 23 was able to summon an army of soldiers from the dead. Wonder Woman just may not have learned how to do that yet; as others have noted, she refused to embrace the role until near the end of the run.

Azzarello's Diana, has no problem killing, out of anger and rage, because she lacks self control.

I think she does have a principled opposition to killing, except perhaps in the heat of battle while defending herself against a powerful opponent who's trying to kill her and her friends. That she may almost violate that principle a couple of times isn't surprising to me; "almost" is the key word, and no one ever said living up to one's principles is supposed to be easy. Because it's difficult, it is also dramatic and impressive.

She almost killed Artemis twice, once when she was about to snap her neck like a twig,

That looked pretty "pragmatic" to me. By presenting a credible threat to Artemis' life, she prompted Apollo to offer a "deal." Once he had offered it, she let Artemis go.

the other when she was about to give her the finishing blow when she was already knocked out, no mercy in site.

It's true that Artemis had worked her into a frenzy, and I might have liked to see her with a little more self control in that particular panel. . However, it seems like a bit of an exaggeration to say she was "about to give her the finishing blow"; she was still pummeling Artemis, it's true, but I see no reason to think she was one punch away from killing her. And when Ares remind her that she needs to go protect Zola and Zeke, she could have quickly finished Artemis off without really losing any time. She chose not to do so. And the very face that Ares was reminding her speaks to degree to which their interactions had shaken his belief that killing one's enemies is the "pragmatic" and right thing to do.

Or, when she was ripping through the First Born body with her bare hands, or thrusting her sword into the Minotaur. In the heat of battle Diana is going for the kill.

When people are trying to kill her and her friends, she sometimes responds with potentially lethal force. But I find it interesting that when the Minotaur returns her log-ago mercy, she thanks him for reminding her of who she is/ That merciful hero is who she really is at her core, even if sometimes her enemies don't make it easy to live up to that ideal self.

She is all about emotions because she is following her heart, but she is not capable of putting her emotions aside and make a pragmatic decision about life or death. Even for a complete monster like the First Born, who will comeback again and again and slaughter people, because she wants to believe in the strength of others.

I think sparing the First Born was more of a principled decision than an emotional one. As she said in o, she doesn't kill in cold blood, and by the time Hades asks her if she's going to finish the FB off, he's helpless and she has calmed down; it would be a killing in cold blood. Letting the FB fall into the pit is an example of her putting her emotions aside and making the pragmatic choice; her emotional response is to save her mother, no matter how awful he is, but she decides she cannot do that.

[Agent Z]

Ares in 23 was able to summon an army of soldiers from the dead. Wonder Woman just may not have learned how to do that yet; as others have noted, she refused to embrace the role until near the end of the run.



I think she does have a principled opposition to killing, except perhaps in the heat of battle while defending herself against a powerful opponent who's trying to kill her and her friends. That she may almost violate that principle a couple of times isn't surprising to me; "almost" is the key word, and no one ever said living up to one's principles is supposed to be easy. Because it's difficult, it is also dramatic and impressive.



That looked pretty "pragmatic" to me. By presenting a credible threat to Artemis' life, she prompted Apollo to offer a "deal." Once he had offered it, she let Artemis go.



It's true that Artemis had worked her into a frenzy, and I might have liked to see her with a little more self control in that particular panel. . However, it seems like a bit of an exaggeration to say she was "about to give her the finishing blow"; she was still pummeling Artemis, it's true, but I see no reason to think she was one punch away from killing her. And when Ares remind her that she needs to go protect Zola and Zeke, she could have quickly finished Artemis off without really losing any time. She chose not to do so. And the very face that Ares was reminding her speaks to degree to which their interactions had shaken his belief that killing one's enemies is the "pragmatic" and right thing to do.




When people are trying to kill her and her friends, she sometimes responds with potentially lethal force. But I find it interesting that when the Minotaur returns her log-ago mercy, she thanks him for reminding her of who she is/ That merciful hero is who she really is at her core, even if sometimes her enemies don't make it easy to live up to that ideal self.



I think sparing the First Born was more of a principled decision than an emotional one. As she said in o, she doesn't kill in cold blood, and by the time Hades asks her if she's going to finish the FB off, he's helpless and she has calmed down; it would be a killing in cold blood. Letting the FB fall into the pit is an example of her putting her emotions aside and making the pragmatic choice; her emotional response is to save her mother, no matter how awful he is, but she decides she cannot do that.

Is it really killing in cold blood when the would be victim has shown himself to be quite willing to kill again and very like will do so?

[Blind Target]

When did the title make it more difficult for amazons to trust her?

When Hera turned them back from snakes while leaving Hippolyta as a statue, making it convenient for Diana, the "God of War", to become their new queen, who just so happens needed an army.

The Amazons see the gods as capricious and do not trust them, and Diana is one of them.

What did Ares do as the god of war? Besides drinking and being bored while looking at the carnage?

Ares was a veteran of countless wars, he fought along side warriors of different eras, probably from ancient times to present days and saw them died. It takes one war to mark a person for life, after all those deaths, he "experienced" more than enough. Drinking is a symptom of a problem, it numbs the pain.

Just as the queen of amazons is just a title. It's what she does with it I'm interested in. Since she now practically -as Ares says War will in WW#4- rules the world, with the nurture of Zeke at hand.

The title of the Queen of the Amazons comes with duties, responsibilities and expectations. What does the title of God of War come with?.

Should and should. I'm quite sure Diana will be -as you put it- Diana about things. She'll fight for peace, but not without mercy and other good stuff that she'll inspire into people. She pretty much reformed everyone (but First born, who at least knows why he's punished this time around) at the end of things. Everyone from Hera to a shaved Minotaur.

Azzarello created the First Born to be the type of villain, that Diana could not defeat with her methods. She couldn't kill him because of her unwillingness to put her emotions aside, she couldn't reform him and turn him into her new best friend either, because he was a monster filled completely with darkness. No matter how many times his life was spared he would just comeback with a vengeance

Here's the question - other than getting access to Olympus (which could have been done by making an ally of any of the gods), why else would FB want to be 'god of war?'

Ares had Diana kill him to prevent FB from becoming god of war. If it's only an empty title, why was Ares so intent on making certain that FB didn't inherit it if no power/authority/ability comes with it?

There should be more that comes with it if it meant so much to Ares that FB not get it.

Ohh! but it gets better. Diana had to kill Ares to stop the First Born from getting his hands on an empty title. An empty title he would've used to get himself to Olympus, upon which he would've gotten his hands on another empty title, King of the Gods!.

First born was acting out prophesy, he'd kill one to get the throne.

It's not to say it's empty, it's what you make of it. And Diana shows (what she's made of) that quite well in the last half of the last act. Not abusing it, using it for good. Restoring the glory that was lost on Ares.

Why not let him have it, it's just an empty title, what could possibly go wrong.

What was Diana going to do?, abuse the power the came with her title?, did someone defined what that is?.

Ares wasn't the first God of War, and Diana won't be the last, maybe after awhile the glory of war starts losing its lustre and needs new fresh blood.

I think she does have a principled opposition to killing, except perhaps in the heat of battle while defending herself against a powerful opponent who's trying to kill her and her friends. That she may almost violate that principle a couple of times isn't surprising to me; "almost" is the key word, and no one ever said living up to one's principles is supposed to be easy. Because it's difficult, it is also dramatic and impressive.

I can't hold it against anyone for killing in self defense, but Diana walks around with a sword, she has swords coming out of her bracelets. Compared that with Superman who also has a no killing policy, going as far as to protect the people his fighting against. How is Diana going to do that when she's trying to cut their limbs off. A sword is not a toy, it's a deadly weapon and if she's wielding one is because she is willing used it to deadly effects.

That looked pretty "pragmatic" to me. By presenting a credible threat to Artemis' life, she prompted Apollo to offer a "deal." Once he had offered it, she let Artemis go.

It's true that Artemis had worked her into a frenzy, and I might have liked to see her with a little more self control in that particular panel. . However, it seems like a bit of an exaggeration to say she was "about to give her the finishing blow"; she was still pummeling Artemis, it's true, but I see no reason to think she was one punch away from killing her. And when Ares remind her that she needs to go protect Zola and Zeke, she could have quickly finished Artemis off without really losing any time. She chose not to do so. And the very face that Ares was reminding her speaks to degree to which their interactions had shaken his belief that killing one's enemies is the "pragmatic" and right thing to do.

Artemis was saved twice from Diana, when someone else "conveniently" intervened. Diana wasn't being pragmatic when she was about to kill her, she really was going to kill her before Apollo offered a deal spare his sister. That moment allowed her to come to her senses. Ares conveniently showed up out nowhere and calmed her down enough to come to her senses. Diana has the power to shutter mountains with her fists, i don't think that was gonna leave a very good impressions on Artemis face.

Diana wouldn't have tried to kill Artemis if her mind wasn't clouded with anger and rage and in battle that sorta thing tends to escalate very quickly and without interruptions Artemis would probably be dead.

I think sparing the First Born was more of a principled decision than an emotional one. As she said in o, she doesn't kill in cold blood, and by the time Hades asks her if she's going to finish the FB off, he's helpless and she has calmed down; it would be a killing in cold blood. Letting the FB fall into the pit is an example of her putting her emotions aside and making the pragmatic choice; her emotional response is to save her mother, no matter how awful he is, but she decides she cannot do that.

She doesn't kill in cold blood, just anger and rage. It's become a sort of pattern with her, that even Finch has picked on it. Have Diana lose self control, threatened to kill someone, and have someone else conveniently around to stop her and calm her down so that she doesnt go through with it and end up killing someone that could no longer defend themselves.

Letting the First Born fall also showed something else, deception. Something straight out of the pages of the Art of War. She couldn't kill him and she couldn't save him, so she embraced something that goes against her own nature. She is truthful and honest to the point of being blunt, she walks around with the lasso of truth. Who knows what else she'll embrace.

[Silvanus]

I can't hold it against anyone for killing in self defense, but Diana walks around with a sword, she has swords coming out of her bracelets. C

The nice thing about swords coming out of her braclets is that she does not need to walk around with a sword--and she rarely did so in Azz's run unless someone was making a serious attempt to ill her and her friends. Frequently--as in her fight with the FB in the last issue--she doesn't do so even then.

I'll leave Finch for Finch threads. Also, I'll skip the Artemis argument this time around, because otherwise I'd just end up repeating myself; we read those scenes differently.

Letting the First Born fall also showed something else, deception. Something straight out of the pages of the Art of War. She couldn't kill him and she couldn't save him, so she embraced something that goes against her own nature. She is truthful and honest to the point of being blunt, she walks around with the lasso of truth. Who knows what else she'll embrace.

we read that one differently too. To me, it makes no sense to think that Diana deceived the First Born; she didn't need to, as he was already falling. It makes a lot more sense to beleive that she was genuinely tempted to save him, but she stepped herself at the last minute.

Is it really killing in cold blood when the would be victim has shown himself to be quite willing to kill again and very like will do so?

Sure, it could be. Why not? Killing in cold blood mans killing in a calculated, premeditated fashion, and not as a crime of passion or int eh heat of battle. The heat of battle had already faded when she spared the FB. "In cold blood" doesn't necessarily means killing an innocent and doesn't necessarily mean that there's not purpose or that there are no mitigating circumstances.

I have to admite that I'm now not sure she ever used the phrase "in cold blood"; I looked at issue 0, and what she actually says is "I won't kill Not like this." I do think, though, that "like this" pretty much means "in cold blood": she's not in the heat of battle but would be calmly deciding to kill the minotaur (in obedience to Ares. And don't forget that the minotaur was the embodiment of rage and violence, or something like that, according to the narrator, so he was likely to kill again too.

[borntohula]

When Hera turned them back from snakes while leaving Hippolyta as a statue, making it convenient for Diana, the "God of War", to become their new queen, who just so happens needed an army.

You think her reformation since becoming a "person" WW#12 and onwards was some sort of ruse? That her thoughts where "In case my -whom I believe to be dead- son comes back into my life, and turns out to be very angry and powerful."

I don't.

The Amazons see the gods as capricious and do not trust them, and Diana is one of them.

Capricious was Strife's words (WW#30), not the amazons'.

Ares was a veteran of countless wars, he fought along side warriors of different eras, probably from ancient times to present days and saw them died. It takes one war to mark a person for life, after all those deaths, he "experienced" more than enough. Drinking is a symptom of a problem, it numbs the pain.

That is CERTAINLY not how he explains it. Especially not in the following scenes:
WW#4 with Apollo
WW#9 with Strife
WW#13-14 with Aphrodite, Apollo, Artemis, Dio and Hephaestus.
WW#16-17 with Diana, Dio, Hera, Lennox, Orion, Strife and Zola.
WW#18 with Demeter and Hermes. (Especially not with Demeter.)

He hates what he and war has become, and what he can't bring himself to undo. While he certainly had his glory days, those where long gone. And things didn't become any better (even if they did, with some time and timing.) when Diana inspired him into showing mercy in WW#0. Shattering the way he viewed himself, and his hopes that she'd become like him. While he stood for murder, she stands for mercy. There's a shaved Minotaur in a gimp get up in hell that can testify to that.

The title of the Queen of the Amazons comes with duties, responsibilities and expectations. What does the title of God of War come with?.
Ohh! but it gets better. Diana had to kill Ares to stop the First Born from getting his hands on an empty title. An empty title he would've used to get himself to Olympus, upon which he would've gotten his hands on another empty title, King of the Gods!.

Why not let him have it, it's just an empty title, what could possibly go wrong.

None of the titles are empty. Each god has a realm and a set of powers. Literarily from the first page to the last one, gods are shown to have power. Whom they love to abuse.

Diana has Paradise Island. She'll be Diana about her powers. She'll inspire, by example.

And what could go wrong with the First born? First time he grew an army he conquered the world (WW#First born) and his second rising even made Highfather of the New Gods fearing the end (WW#14.). I don't think First Born would be a good God of war...

What was Diana going to do?, abuse the power the came with her title?, did someone defined what that is?.

I don't think she will (not the Diana in WW#0-35 at least.). A big point of the story is that she's careful with power. Wearing cuffs to keep it down. Artemis even demands that she'll show full force every time they meet, since she's obviously holding back. But she refused to do so.

But other than that: hats off. Certainly seems you have your interpretation, just I got mine.

[Hawk80]

The nice thing about swords coming out of her braclets is that she does not need to walk around with a sword

And the worst thing about the bracelets is that she cannot walk around without a sword (even if concealed).

[Silvanus]

And the worst thing about the bracelets is that she cannot walk around without a sword (even if concealed).

I think the bracelets have the power to summon or generate weapons--not really the same thing as carrying a concealed weapon. I have the power to "summon" a pizza by calling Papa John's on my cell phone; that doesn't mean I'm concealing a pizza in my cell phone.

Besides, she didn't ask for her bracelets' new power--Heph's gift doesn't necessarily a desire on her part to be armed. She still often, even in the last issue, enters combat unarmed (not counting her lasso or the bracelets themselves).

[Darrin Kelley]

I think the whole thing flies in the face of Diana's very identity. She has always been someone who focused on peace. Not war.

[Hawk80]

I mean: stick a sword permanently on Diana's leg and the sword will be overused. Give her a infinite weapons summoner and you triple the problem. There will never be a problem that won't be solved with the use of a weapon.
Maybe Azz did not abuse the bracelets' power, but now they should go.
Another reason: a competent warrior should be shown able to prepare the right arsenal for the right problem. Infinite weapon summoner is just... cheap.

If my cell phone could summon infinite pizza for free I would be fat... I mean Saturn-like fat.

[Jesse_Custer]

I read the first issue of David Finch's wife writing it. What a pure crap fest that book was.

Amazing art though.

[Gaelforce]

Please take any further discussion of any creators/runs to their appropriate threads. If you want to discuss how Meredith Finch is writing Diana as the god of war, that's fine, but general commentary not related specifically to the topic belongs elsewhere.

[Blind Target]

The nice thing about swords coming out of her braclets is that she does not need to walk around with a sword--and she rarely did so in Azz's run unless someone was making a serious attempt to ill her and her friends. Frequently--as in her fight with the FB in the last issue--she doesn't do so even then.

She lost her swords during the fight with the Minotaur, he was going to finish her off with the one she stabbed him with, but remembered the mercy she showed him. She took the bracelets off to fight the First Born, after he killed the Minotaur for showing mercy, with one of her swords. Who needs swords when she can rip into his body with her bare hands.

I'll leave Finch for Finch threads. Also, I'll skip the Artemis argument this time around, because otherwise I'd just end up repeating myself; we read those scenes differently.

Let's leave it this way, just because she didn't kill her, doesn't mean she wasn't trying to.

we read that one differently too. To me, it makes no sense to think that Diana deceived the First Born; she didn't need to, as he was already falling. It makes a lot more sense to beleive that she was genuinely tempted to save him, but she stepped herself at the last minute.

It's kinda of cruel actually. Whether she intended to or not, it came of as deceptive.

I don't believe that Diana forgot she could fly, or that she had a lapse in judgement and thought she could save him. I believe she wanted to show him some tough love, and letting him fall by himself would've being a wasted opportunity to teach him a lesson. What she did was a deliberate act of deception.

They were both falling, and she asks for his hand from a position of weakness, giving the impression that she was "falling" too. He "falls" for it, thinking, that they were going "down" together, and he wouldn't be alone anymore, planting the seeds of hope in his black heart, and then BAM! reality strikes, tough love baby!, she had other plans.

Tough love is just another way of saying, if you don't want to end up alone, you better "change" your act.

You think her reformation since becoming a "person" WW#12 and onwards was some sort of ruse? That her thoughts where "In case my -whom I believe to be dead- son comes back into my life, and turns out to be very angry and powerful."

I don't.

Not what i think, but how the Amazons would see things.

Capricious was Strife's words (WW#30), not the amazons'.

Aleka's words actually. The rest of the Amazons were mostly silent in agreement.

While he stood for murder, she stands for mercy. There's a shaved Minotaur in a gimp get up in hell that can testify to that.

Funny, because Diana herself can testify to Ares own show of mercy.

It depends how you see him. The way I saw it, Azzarello's Ares resembled a male version of Athena, that had lived through hell. Athena did not enjoy killing, did not like unnecessary deaths, and did not go to war unless it was absolutely necessary. I find it more likely that someone like that would end up like Ares. Getting tired, after all the countless wars, deaths and killings, and mentoring someone to eventually replace her. As opposed to the bloodthirsty myth Ares, who embraced the more brutal nature of war, who, more often then not tended to be on the losing side. Why would Ares care what he had become, unless he wasn't always like that.

Diana has Paradise Island. She'll be Diana about her powers. She'll inspire, by example.

The Athenians chose Athena as their patron god because she embodied the qualities they most valued. The Amazons did not choose Diana as their God of War, who embodies the qualities they most valued. They are not on the same page, they are like night and day, she is like a special little snow flake compared to the other Amazons. She is trying to reformed them, but not as the God of War, but as their queen, because that would be abuse of power.

Who knows, maybe they'll create a god of their own to replace her, who embodies the qualities they most value.

And what could go wrong with the First born? First time he grew an army he conquered the world (WW#First born) and his second rising even made Highfather of the New Gods fearing the end (WW#14.). I don't think First Born would be a good God of war...

I don't think she will (not the Diana in WW#0-35 at least.). A big point of the story is that she's careful with power. Wearing cuffs to keep it down. Artemis even demands that she'll show full force every time they meet, since she's obviously holding back. But she refused to do so.

I was being sarcastic about that. Couldn't resist, sorry.

But other than that: hats off. Certainly seems you have your interpretation, just I got mine.

Thats what naturally happens when things are left vague.

[Dr. Hurt]

Awesome concept, poor execution.

I love the idea of Diana being a god in the DCU. It elevates her in stature and should be putting an end to the questions regarding her power levels. I also find the concept of a warrior for peace now having to take on the duties of god of war to be a fascinating idea rich with story telling potential.

Sadly, however, Azzarello completely skipped over the 'what does it mean' part, and even though his gods were generally *very* powerful, Diana's abilities do not seemed to have changed at all. Here we are, well past the point of when she became gow, and still nobody knows what that means.

By contrast (because it's kinda an obvious contrast) look at the new Thor. God of thunder for just a few issues and already kicking butt, taking names and fully embracing the power that comes with the hammer.

So we have a character with an undefined title, undefined or absent new abilities, and an emotional basket case as a result of her gaining the title.

This could have been soooo much better

My feelings exactly.

[Silvanus]

She lost her swords during the fight with the Minotaur, he was going to finish her off with the one she stabbed him with, but remembered the mercy she showed him.

Yes--and wasn't that cool? The minotaur, personifying rage and violence, doesn't seem to be someone the gods can defeat with rage, violence and swords. In the end, it's not her sword that protects and defines her; it's the mercy she showed the minotaur. That's why she thanks fhe minotaur for reminding her who she is; the kind of mercy that she showed the minotaur, which he now reflects back to her, sums up "who she is."

She took the bracelets off to fight the First Born,

Yep. She could have materialized new swords instead of taking off her bracelets; but, ultimately, she relies on her own strength (as well as her mercy--see above) and not on the swords.

Let's leave it this way, just because she didn't kill her, doesn't mean she wasn't trying to.

If fighting back in a battle to to the death, and not instantly putting on the breaks when that battle is won, is "trying to kill her," then yes, not killing her doesn't mean she wasn't trying to. It does mean she ultimately chose not to, though. In the first case, if she was that out of control, she could have snapped Artemis' neck and then gone after Apollo, regardless of the "deal" he was offering; in the the second case, she could have quickly finished Artemis off and then pursued the other priorities of which Ares was reminding her. In both cases, if she was really driven only by emotions, she would have killed; but by not killing, she chooses to act both pragmatically and according to her principles. It's nice when principles and pragmatism coincide.

You compared these scenes to the Finches' scenes of Wonder Woman with Swamp Thing and the bug man (or was "Swamp Thing and the Bug Men" the name of the band playing at Diana's club in London?) But in neither of those cases had she been attacked and engaged in a battle to the death.

I don't believe that Diana forgot she could fly, or that she had a lapse in judgement and thought she could save him.

I'm sure she didn't "forget"; I just think she gave him a chance to reach out to her. If he had reached out to her without the creepy possessive togetherness-in-suffering bit, she might actually have saved him. And I wouldn't call it a lapse in judgement; her first instinct is always to save people. and I like that.

Thats what naturally happens when things are left vague.

Well, that's literature for ya. It leaves room for interpretation.

I do think you're right that she's a walking contradiction, or a living paradox. But (and maybe you agree with this) she has always been that; Marston made her a warrior for peace, and that's part of what made her so intriguing. It's true that there can be problems of balance; there can be runs where she seems like warrior who doesn't care about peace, or runs in which she appears to be a pure pacifist who won't prepare for war. But I think that in Azzarello's "Diana the warrior" and "Diana the peacemaker" are relatively balanced and in dramatic tension with each other, as they should be. She's a war good who believes in mercy and compassion--a strange and interesting thing to be.

[Agent Z]

Well, that's literature for ya. It leaves room for interpretation.

Maybe but you shouldn't be surprised if people end up taking a less-than-positive interpretation of your work.