Originally Posted by
Silvanus
Continued from my earlier response to Brett...
That's right. He couldn't just stop. And maybe I can't just stop eating potato chips. But that wouldn't mean it's humanly impossible to stop eating potato chips; it would mean that I personally have a limitation. Certainly, Ares had his own personal limitations; he never learned to be anything but war, and he knew only a limited range of ways to interpret and perform being War. But. as his afterimage acknowledges in issue 35, Diana doesn't share all his limitations; that he couldn't do something doesn't mean she can't.I don't necessarily mean that she can stop being god of war, but perhaps she can represent a different point of view of war, and perhaps she can seek to preside over war (regulating it, restraining it, tempering it) rather than embodying it.
Our choices are more complicated than just "fight" or "don't fight," though. If we don't choose to be absolute pacifists (which I don't think Wonder Woman has ever been, in any run), we must choose under what conditions to fight, by what means to fight, to what ends to find; when and how to show mercy; and under what conditions, by what means and to what ends to seek peace. The difference between being a god of war like Ares, who counsels never letting a foe live, and being a god of war like Diana, who spares her worst enemy's life, provides a wide range for freedom of choice. The best representation of freedom of choice is the choice of war's supposed, nominal representative to act in ways that represent peace, love and mercy.
But--unless you count leading an army to protect the world from destruction, which she also did in Jiminez's Our Worlds at War--Azz's Diana did nothing to help people fight or kill or compromise their values int he name of victory. By her actions, she represents peaceful choices like sparing her enemies. One's title isn't everything.