New Phil Jimenez/Wonder Woman Interview

[brettc1]

Diana as god of war IS acting different, because she now exists to embody to choice of war instead of peace.

Ares under Jimenez had the ability to tell Diana to work against war, but he did NOT have the ability to do so himself. He can't just suddenly say "I'm not the god of war anymore. I am the god of...NOT war."

Similarly, Azzarello shows us that his Ares can't just stop either. If he could have, clearly he would have done so. He needs a successor, meaning that war itself in the DCU is a force of existence as real as solar energy and agitated electrons. I'm using Azzarello's own work here to make my point.

In a sense, this is an embodiment of free will, which is pretty much established in the DCU as well. Humans have the ability to decide their fate. You can choose war or the alternative. But the choice MUST exist, or free will is destroyed.

To use the Batman metaphor, Batman would only be selling drugs to people who WANT to buy them. War is not weapons, as you said. War is a choice to fight and kill and do whatever it takes to find victory. The God of War represents that choice and all the ugliness it entails. And that, at the moment, is Wonder Woman.

So I can see where Jimenez is coming from.

[Silvanus]

Diana as god of war IS acting different, because she now exists to embody to choice of war instead of peace.

"Existing to embody..." is not "acting." If a politician tells me that he or she embodies freedom, I'll smile politely and ask what, conceretely, they have done to advance the cause of freedom.

Besides, according to Diana in issue 36, she most certainly does not exist for the purpose of embodying war. Being god of war is one of her multiple roles, but it's not her reason for existence or her core identity.

Ares under Jimenez had the ability to tell Diana to work against war, but he did NOT have the ability to do so himself. He can't just suddenly say "I'm not the god of war anymore. I am the god of...NOT war."

Yeah--"I didn't pull the trigger; I just sent someone to pull the trigger." That's not often considered a very important difference. And the real question, I think, is not whether Diana can say "I'm not the god war anymore"; it's whether Diana can say "from now on, being the god of war is going to mean something other than what it meant to Ares." Why can't she decide it's going to mean something more like it meant in Athena's case or Mars' case in Greek and Roman mythology?

Got to go--more later.

[Agent Z]

"Existing to embody..." is not "acting." If a politician tells me that he or she embodies freedom, I'll smile politely and ask what, conceretely, they have done to advance the cause of freedom.

Besides, according to Diana in issue 36, she most certainly does not exist for the purpose of embodying war. Being god of war is one of her multiple roles, but it's not her reason for existence or her core identity.



Yeah--"I didn't pull the trigger; I just sent someone to pull the trigger." That's not often considered a very important difference. And the real question, I think, is not whether Diana can say "I'm not the god war anymore"; it's whether Diana can say "from now on, being the god of war is going to mean something other than what it meant to Ares." Why can't she decide it's going to mean something more like it meant in Athena's case or Mars' case in Greek and Roman mythology?

Got to go--more later.

Athena was the Goddess of Wisdom and Knowledge. War tactics fell under her domain, but that was because wisdom was a broad enough concept. Mars was also described as God of Agriculture. But Ares was never anything more than the God of War, of Conflict, of Murder.

Furthermore, "existing to embody" IS "acting" in this case because the gods are living concepts. As we saw with Ares, War defined how he behaved whether he was savage and bloodthirsty or depressed. Ares lived way longer than Diana. You really think he couldn't have changed what his mantle meant if it was possible?

[numberthirty]

Ares lived way longer than Diana. You really think he couldn't have changed what his mantle meant if it was possible?

Passing it on was his plan to change it!

[Agent Z]

Passing it on was his plan to change it!

That this was his plan should be proof enough of it's futility.

[Silvanus]

Athena was the Goddess of Wisdom and Knowledge. War tactics fell under her domain, but that was because wisdom was a broad enough concept. Mars was also described as God of Agriculture.

Mars is a good example. He seems to have originally been an agricultural deity, but he became increasingly known and worshipped as a war deity, and as embodiment of the Roman state and authorizer of its treaties, as the Romans became a more military people. So, mantles can change, historically.

But Ares was never anything more than the God of War, of Conflict, of Murder.

Right, but Diana already has been, and still is, much more--and much different--from that, so her interpretation and performance of the role she has inherited from him will be different, as she makes plain (to me and to Hades, at least) at the end of issue 23, when she refuses to kill her fallen enemy. She--probably unlike Ares--has come to this role as an adult, with her values set and articulated, and she's not letting go of them.

Furthermore, "existing to embody" IS "acting" in this case because the gods are living concepts.

Ares embodies certain points of view on war when he fights, teaches strategy and/or ruthlessness, drinks himself to oblivion, or sacrifices himself. And Diana embodies more critical and idealistic points of view on war by, for example, sparing the First Born at the end of issue 23, thanking the minotaur for reminding her who she really is (someone who spares her enemies), and giving up the FB's location to Cassandra rather than letting Milan die, or simply slipping away into her own death as Ares' ghost advised rather than continuing to fight for the survival of her family and the world. Those are actions, and they determine what it means for each of these different war gods to "exist to embody...." or to be a "living concept." By itself, "existing" is more of a state than an action.

As we saw with Ares, War defined how he behaved whether he was savage and bloodthirst[qupte]y or depressed.

War (small w) did define how Ares behaved, yes; but it has not defined how Diana has behaved, and that's the point. She says it in 35; she's not going to be defined by any one role.

Ares lived way longer than Diana. You really think he couldn't have changed what his mantle meant if it was possible?

I sure do. Longevity doesn't determine whether people are capable of change; some young people change their ways, and some old people never have (and vice versa, of course). Ares, or his ghost or a vision of him, acknowledges in issue 34 that Diana is capable of much that he had not been able to do. That dialogue is the culmination of Diana and Ares' relationship in Azz's run, and I think we have to take it as Azz's way of underlining the point that Diana is not Ares (or vice versa) even though she holds his throne.

[Silvanus]

Continued from my earlier response to Brett...

Similarly, Azzarello shows us that his Ares can't just stop either.

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.

In a sense, this is an embodiment of free will, which is pretty much established in the DCU as well. Humans have the ability to decide their fate. You can choose war or the alternative. But the choice MUST exist, or free will is destroyed.

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.

To use the Batman metaphor, Batman would only be selling drugs to people who WANT to buy them...

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.

[brettc1]

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.

Then she isn't being the God of War, as other gods have already pointed out. You will never convince me that Diana represents 'the goodness of war' because there IS no goodness in it. History has shown us that even in wars fought for a just cause atrocities will be committed by both sides.

You talk about an "idealistic" view of war but what you really mean is hopelessly naive. War is vulgar. If Diana wants to not be representing that, fine. But don't call her The God of War as her snappy new title. It is a gross disservice not only to the character but to everybody reading it.

The purest representation Ares showed as God of War was probably killing himself to end his own misery.

[Silvanus]

Then she isn't being the God of War, as other gods have already pointed out.

She makes "an interesting god of war," as Hades has already pointed out. Yes, she subverts expectations about what a god of war "should: be, believe and do. In some ways, she;s acting like a conscientious objector even while occupying the throne of War. I don't think that's a disservice to herself or readers; I think it's conscientious and interesting.

You talk about an "idealistic" view of war but what you really mean is hopelessly naive.

I said idealistic and critical, and those, in my mind, are linked. I'm not talking about a glorious, glamorous ideal of war. The idealism I'm talking about consists of waging war only as a last resort and according to strict principles of justice, and about showing mercy and integrity even under the pressure of war, and about using preparation for war to deter war, and about sublimating the energies of war to "fight" for justice by non-violent means, and about the valor of soldiers who save each other, and about beating swords into plowshares.And no, wars don't in reality, get waged idealistically; but reality usually departs form ideals, and that doesn't mean the ideals are to be disparaged or ignored.

You will never convince me that Diana represents 'the goodness of war'

Nor will I try. What exactly are you quoting there? "The goodness of war" is not my phrase, nor one that I would use. I think she chooses, by her actions, to represent the unwarlike virtues of peace, love and mercy (as this character always has), even while reluctantly occupying the role of war god. She represented those values while she was fighting in World War One, she presented them when she was fighting for Our World at War, and she represents them now.

[brettc1]

She makes "an interesting god of war," as Hades has already pointed out. Yes, she subverts expectations about what a god of war "should: be, believe and do. In some ways, she;s acting like a conscientious objector even while occupying the throne of War. I don't think that's a disservice to herself or readers; I think it's conscientious and interesting.

It will be interesting, if she finally realizes that there is nothing noble about war. But so far we haven't seen any examples of that - just a lot of "I am God of War".

I said idealistic and critical, and those, in my mind, are linked. I'm not talking about a glorious, glamorous ideal of war. The idealism I'm talking about consists of waging war only as a last resort and according to strict principles of justice, and about showing mercy and integrity even under the pressure of war, and about using preparation for war to deter war, and about sublimating the energies of war to "fight" for justice by non-violent means, and about the valor of soldiers who save each other, and about beating swords into plowshares.And no, wars don't in reality, get waged idealistically; but reality usually departs form ideals, and that doesn't mean the ideals are to be disparaged or ignored.

No, but neither should one blindly believe that ideals are the reality.

Soldiers save each other by killing other soldiers, as brutally and efficiently as possible. War isn't two knights jousting in the lists - its firing rockets into the middle of civilian London and then the other side retaliating by firebombing Dresden. Wonder Woman can't be god of war and not condone those things, any more than Posiedon can be the god of the sea and remove water. So if she isn't going to allow for them she is not really a god of war, which is what I think Hades meant by interesting.

Nor will I try. What exactly are you quoting there? "The goodness of war" is not my phrase, nor one that I would use. I think she chooses, by her actions, to represent the unwarlike virtues of peace, love and mercy (as this character always has), even while reluctantly occupying the role of war god. She represented those values while she was fighting in World War One, she presented them when she was fighting for Our World at War, and she represents them now.

In WW2 she was fighting AGAINST war, because Mars was on the side of the Axis powers. Of course Marston painted a rather one sided view of things, because as I mentioned the allies firebombed Dresden and killed thousands of civilians. But the point remains if you fighting with honor and nobility you are not really being warlike.

[numberthirty]

No, but neither should one blindly believe that ideals are the reality.

Soldiers save each other by killing other soldiers, as brutally and efficiently as possible. War isn't two knights jousting in the lists - its firing rockets into the middle of civilian London and then the other side retaliating by firebombing Dresden. Wonder Woman can't be god of war and not condone those things, any more than Posiedon can be the god of the sea and remove water. So if she isn't going to allow for them she is not really a god of war, which is what I think Hades meant by interesting.

In WW2 she was fighting AGAINST war, because Mars was on the side of the Axis powers. Of course Marston painted a rather one sided view of things, because as I mentioned the allies firebombed Dresden and killed thousands of civilians. But the point remains if you fighting with honor and nobility you are not really being warlike.

See issue #0.

[brettc1]

See issue #0.

Why? I already know it supports everything I just said.

[numberthirty]

See issue #0.

Why? I already know it supports everything I just said.

In context, quite the opposite.

[Silvanus]

It will be interesting, if she finally realizes that there is nothing noble about war. But so far we haven't seen any examples of that - just a lot of "I am God of War".

We have, in fact, seen that she recognizes the ignobility and ugliness of war and would prefer to bring wars--and if she could, war in general-- to an end. Even as an adolescent, she broke with War over his principle of showing no mercy to the enemy. And what about when she first inherited the title in the sad, unwilling way that she did, and immediately declared "there has been enough killing today"? She never wanted to be War, and in fact she resisted taking the role even after she inherited it, but she took up the role (like ordinary soldiers do) to protect her family and her world. Later, in Soule's book, she explicitly tells Superman that she see her role as making war a last resort and eliminating it entirely if she could. This doesn't work out in her no-longer-possible future, but even there, she never stops realizing that war is ignoble and has to be reined in. And that future is gone and she gets to try again (for the first time ). In Justice League, she seems--perhaps coincidentally, but if so I appreciate the coincidence--to have become more peaceful and merciful since becoming god of war, and I believe she just recently said in that book that she always prefers peaceful solutions.

I'd be happy to see fewer loud "I am the god of war!" declarations; but in general, when she reminds people that she's god of war, I don't think it's to assert the nobility of war; I think it's to encourage her allies to let her take the risks, or to encourage her enemies to surrender (and thus bring a war or a battle to an end). (I say "in general" because of course there are better and worse portrayals; I think the the Finches, for example, sometimes miss Azz's point and make her seem to happy to be War and too willing too embrace warlike ways).

No, but neither should one blindly believe that ideals are the reality.

We agree about that, but I don't see Wonder Woman as pretending that the ideals are reality; I think that her goal as god of war would be to promote the ideals and make the reality of war rarer, briefer, and more limited. (I can understand why when I mentioned "idealism" you thought I was talking about knights in shining armor; but I was thinking more of anti-war protesters, the Red Cross at its best, and peacemakers in general, as well as soldiers who do their best to hold onto their humanity and integrity even within war).

Soldiers save each other by killing other soldiers, as brutally and efficiently as possible. War isn't two knights jousting in the lists - its firing rockets into the middle of civilian London and then the other side retaliating by firebombing Dresden.

I agree, in the grand scheme of things, but as you know, there are also soldiers who save soldiers by dragging them back from the battlefield, and there are soldiers who are medics and specialize in saving others by treating them. I think Wonder Woman as god of war would bless these soldiers and all who try to keep their humanity within the inhumane, unhuman environment of war. I wouldn't mind if ultimately her title were to morph into goddess of soldiers or goddess of warriors.

Wonder Woman can't be god of war and not condone those things, any more than Poseidon can be the god of the sea and remove water. So if she isn't going to allow for them she is not really a god of war, which is what I think Hades meant by interesting.

Poseidon can, presumably, remove water; I think worshippers would expect that the god of seas could, if he chose, hold back or even withdraw floods. That's one of the reasons to worship a god of the seas. And if Demeter could, as you pointed out, withdraw the world's harvests, so perhaps Poseidon, if angry enough, could withdraw the seas and other bodies of water and bring a worldwide drought. Of course, to withhold the seas or the harvests for too long would be suicidal (because it would destroy the world, leaving no worshippers, and perhaps not even leaving the phenomena that the god represented or presided over). So in practice ,all the gods can do, as Heph says, is tinker; but, to mortals, the gods' "tinkering" can matter. Diana's not going to be able to snap her fingers and remove all wars or make them somehow clean and glamorous, but she may labor to bring individual wars to just, peaceful conclusions.

When you mentioned Demeter, you seemed to suggest that it was an all-or-nothing kind of thing; she can suspend her whole phenomenon, or she can keep providing it all. But that doesn't seem to be the way it always worked in classical mythology and religion. Hecate was known for bringing the wrath of storms, but she was also petitioned to hold particular storms back. Even Ares was prayed to in at least one text--namely the Homeric Hymn to Ares--to hold back war and sooth the warlike impulses.On the other hand, Apollo was known as a god of healing, but he could also inflict disease with his pestilential arrows. "The gods giveth, the gods take away"; what they give--or inflict--they can also withhold.

Hades does, no doubt, mean that she's going against what the god of war is supposed to believe and do; but, at the same time, he's the first to recognize her as god of war. The gods, after all, are not allergic to paradox. Diana is War and she is anti-war; she breaks the mold, but she still holds the title and she still holds dominion over War's realm (whatever that turns out to mean.) She hold the title, but she subverts the title. That's what I think is interesting. To return to your previous example, it's not like Batman becoming a drug dealer, but it's more like Batman becoming the head of the world's biggest drug cartel and forcing it to stop selling drugs.

Yeah, I realize that's more or less the plot of Godfather, and that plot takes Michael Corleone into dark places. But Michael Corleone is no Wonder Woman.

In WW2 she was fighting AGAINST war, because Mars was on the side of the Axis powers.

Yes, of course, she was making war against War; and it was the same when she fought the First Born; she was "War" in title and throne, but it was the First Born, her enemy, who actively embodied, or enacted, the death and destruction that war brings. She was fighting fire with fire, and that's what I think she would do as god of war; turn the concept against itself, the ideal against the reality, the throne against the phenomenon.

Of course Marston painted a rather one sided view of things, because as I mentioned the allies firebombed Dresden and killed thousands of civilians. But the point remains if you fighting with honor and nobility you are not really being warlike.

Agreed. And Diana makes a most unwarlike War--which I think is cool.

Incidentally...what would it mean to be god of the storm? Should Thor be an amoral force of nature, ripping through the countryside, drowning cities, and leaving a random wake of death and destruction without rhyme or reason? OR should he try to constrain the power of the storm and harness it for good? Obviously he does the latter, and I think that's what Diana should do as god of war--even if that entails the paradox of a god of war trying to tear down the machinery of war and beat swords into ploughshares. In fact, I'm all for the paradox.

[brettc1]

We have, in fact, seen that she recognizes the ignobility and ugliness of war and would prefer to bring wars--and if she could, war in general-- to an end. Even as an adolescent, she broke with War over his principle of showing no mercy to the enemy. And what about when she first inherited the title in the sad, unwilling way that she did, and immediately declared "there has been enough killing today"? She never wanted to be War, and in fact she resisted taking the role even after she inherited it, but she took up the role (like ordinary soldiers do) to protect her family and her world. Later, in Soule's book, she explicitly tells Superman that she see her role as making war a last resort and eliminating it entirely if she could. This doesn't work out in her no-longer-possible future, but even there, she never stops realizing that war is ignoble and has to be reined in. And that future is gone and she gets to try again (for the first time ). In Justice League, she seems--perhaps coincidentally, but if so I appreciate the coincidence--to have become more peaceful and merciful since becoming god of war, and I believe she just recently said in that book that she always prefers peaceful solutions.

So not the god of war.

I'd be happy to see fewer loud "I am the god of war!" declarations; but in general, when she reminds people that she's god of war, I don't think it's to assert the nobility of war; I think it's to encourage her allies to let her take the risks, or to encourage her enemies to surrender (and thus bring a war or a battle to an end). (I say "in general" because of course there are better and worse portrayals; I think the the Finches, for example, sometimes miss Azz's point and make her seem to happy to be War and too willing too embrace warlike ways).

Like the god of war.

We agree about that, but I don't see Wonder Woman as pretending that the ideals are reality; I think that her goal as god of war would be to promote the ideals and make the reality of war rarer, briefer, and more limited. (I can understand why when I mentioned "idealism" you thought I was talking about knights in shining armor; but I was thinking more of anti-war protesters, the Red Cross at its best, and peacemakers in general, as well as soldiers who do their best to hold onto their humanity and integrity even within war).

By not following the god of war.

I agree, in the grand scheme of things, but as you know, there are also soldiers who save soldiers by dragging them back from the battlefield, and there are soldiers who are medics and specialize in saving others by treating them. I think Wonder Woman as god of war would bless these soldiers and all who try to keep their humanity within the inhumane, unhuman environment of war.

The inhumane, unhuman environment she is god of, you mean.

I wouldn't mind if ultimately her title were to morph into goddess of soldiers or goddess of warriors.

Athena might mind.

Poseidon can, presumably, remove water; I think worshippers would expect that the god of seas could, if he chose, hold back or even withdraw floods. That's one of the reasons to worship a god of the seas. And if Demeter could, as you pointed out, withdraw the world's harvests, so perhaps Poseidon, if angry enough, could withdraw the seas and other bodies of water and bring a worldwide drought. Of course, to withhold the seas or the harvests for too long would be suicidal (because it would destroy the world, leaving no worshippers, and perhaps not even leaving the phenomena that the god represented or presided over). So in practice ,all the gods can do, as Heph says, is tinker; but, to mortals, the gods' "tinkering" can matter. Diana's not going to be able to snap her fingers and remove all wars or make them somehow clean and glamorous, but she may labor to bring individual wars to just, peaceful conclusions.

After the pre-requisite amount of raping and torturing and general misery of which she is the god.

When you mentioned Demeter, you seemed to suggest that it was an all-or-nothing kind of thing; she can suspend her whole phenomenon, or she can keep providing it all. But that doesn't seem to be the way it always worked in classical mythology and religion. Hecate was known for bringing the wrath of storms, but she was also petitioned to hold particular storms back. Even Ares was prayed to in at least one text--namely the Homeric Hymn to Ares--to hold back war and sooth the warlike impulses.On the other hand, Apollo was known as a god of healing, but he could also inflict disease with his pestilential arrows. "The gods giveth, the gods take away"; what they give--or inflict--they can also withhold.

So become the goddess of no free will.

Hades does, no doubt, mean that she's going against what the god of war is supposed to believe and do; but, at the same time, he's the first to recognize her as god of war. The gods, after all, are not allergic to paradox. Diana is War and she is anti-war; she breaks the mold, but she still holds the title and she still holds dominion over War's realm (whatever that turns out to mean.)

Death, fear, torture, murder, rape, carnage - it's pretty straight forward.

She hold the title, but she subverts the title. That's what I think is interesting. To return to your previous example, it's not like Batman becoming a drug dealer, but it's more like Batman becoming the head of the world's biggest drug cartel and forcing it to stop selling drugs.

Yeah, I realize that's more or less the plot of Godfather, and that plot takes Michael Corleone into dark places. But Michael Corleone is no Wonder Woman.

Might be nice if Wonder Woman was.

Yes, of course, she was making war against War;

No. She was fighting against war. Not the same thing.

and it was the same when she fought the First Born; she was "War" in title and throne, but it was the First Born, her enemy, who actively embodied, or enacted, the death and destruction that war brings. She was fighting fire with fire, and that's what I think she would do as god of war; turn the concept against itself, the ideal against the reality, the throne against the phenomenon.

Yes, let's use the power of the dark side to defeat it. Oh yeah, that ends well...

Agreed. And Diana makes a most unwarlike War--which I think is cool.

So back to not actually being war.

Incidentally...what would it mean to be god of the storm? Should Thor be an amoral force of nature, ripping through the countryside, drowning cities, and leaving a random wake of death and destruction without rhyme or reason? OR should he try to constrain the power of the storm and harness it for good? Obviously he does the latter, and I think that's what Diana should do as god of war--even if that entails the paradox of a god of war trying to tear down the machinery of war and beat swords into ploughshares. In fact, I'm all for the paradox.

Storms bring life as well as destruction. Saying that war is necessary is simply admitting the failure of Wonder Woman's ideal. There is fighting as a warrior, and there is fighting a war. If you're not torturing your enemies, not inciting terror and fear, not raining destruction upon them until they have no capability with which to resist you, then you may be fighting but you have not succumbed to war.

Thor can bring the lighting or not, but he can't make the lightning be made of lollipops.