My theory on why Batman was angry at Diana killing Max Lord

[Lee Stone]

That rule goes straight out the window the minute your life, and others; are in mortal danger.

What a lot of people refuse to accept, is that, Diana had no other choice.

She couldn't control Max and order him to release Superman.

She couldn't block his telepathy.

And, she certainly couldn't survive a second round with Superman.

But, more importantly, she couldn't let Lord's plans continue unchecked - he'd proven that he was planning a mass genocide of superheroes, regular human and "metahuman."

(Rather ironic, especially considering that he, himself, was a dangerous "metahuman".)

((Doubly ironic in that his first victim, was a retired, normal human superhero who had worked with him in the past.))

I'm going with Sacred Knight and SiegePerilous02: the whole mess was designed to insert contrived drama and tragedy amongst the superhero community, for the sake of increased sales due to "realistic" grim and gritty darkness.

At best, it was a short-term gain of a few readers.

But the damage it did was so catastrophic that a lot of long-term readers turned their backs and walked out the door.

And, looking around, a lot of them obviously haven't come back.

Yet.

Probably because DC has yanked the rug out from under them before ...

I agree.
If the editorial and writers wanted a better solution to stop Max, they could've thrown in an Achille's heel or deus ex machina.

It was designed from the get go to A) introduce more angst, B) make the heroes appear more ruthless and C) take a strike at the JLI and what all it represented.

Besides, if you do something so profound that makes the part of the audience that doesn't always agree with you leave, then you're left with only an audience that supports you one hundred percent.
Doesn't matter that the audience is smaller, just that they're agreeable.

[SiegePerilous02]

To those who say bad writing, how would a well written Superman and Batman have reacted to Diana killing a human? Especially when the no killing rule is taken into account

Being that strict with the no kill rule in the first place was pretty much setting themselves up for trouble. But as DochaDocha pointed out, there are prior moments where Clark has witnessed her killing in combat and, despite not being 100% comfortable with it, also didn't act judgmental towards her. He's also killed himself. Add to the fact that he was the one being used as a killing tool who beat her up, and not being able to offer a valid alternative while acting holier than thou, and you have a Clark who comes across like an ineffective idiot.

Bruce is a little more acceptable considering his more pathological response to killing, but then they went and had him be partially responsible for the OMAC fiasco and then never really addressed it. Instead of offering a nuanced conflict between them, that just makes Bruce look like the biggest douche in the universe. Rucka's (and only Rucka's) writing of Diana aside, the whole thing was a mess for the Trinity.

[KoriandrJean]

Being that strict with the no kill rule in the first place was pretty much setting themselves up for trouble. But as DochaDocha pointed out, there are prior moments where Clark has witnessed her killing in combat and, despite not being 100% comfortable with it, also didn't act judgmental towards her. He's also killed himself. Add to the fact that he was the one being used as a killing tool who beat her up, and not being able to offer a valid alternative while acting holier than thou, and you have a Clark who comes across like an ineffective idiot.

Bruce is a little more acceptable considering his more pathological response to killing, but then they went and had him be partially responsible for the OMAC fiasco and then never really addressed it. Instead of offering a nuanced conflict between them, that just makes Bruce look like the biggest douche in the universe. Rucka's (and only Rucka's) writing of Diana aside, the whole thing was a mess for the Trinity.

Well said! All of the above, and more, is probably why DC is so desperate to sweep the whole mess under the rug and pretend it never happened.

Of course, people are looking at that mountain of carpet in the living room ...

[Cmbmool]

It's a theory. But I maintain that the reason for Bruce's anger is the simple one of it breaking the 'no killing' rule. Also it just builds on top of Bruce's existing anger that lead to his creation of Brother Eye: That super-humanity is slowly spiraling out of control and setting itself above human laws. Bruce already had a great deal of resentment towards the various superhumans of the Justice League after Identity Crisis, this was just another notch in the line that proved why Brother Eye was needed.

Yet Batman couldn't regain control of Brother Eye long enough to reprogram him and also to stop the death of the Amazons.

[phonogram12]

Being that strict with the no kill rule in the first place was pretty much setting themselves up for trouble. But as DochaDocha pointed out, there are prior moments where Clark has witnessed her killing in combat and, despite not being 100% comfortable with it, also didn't act judgmental towards her. He's also killed himself. Add to the fact that he was the one being used as a killing tool who beat her up, and not being able to offer a valid alternative while acting holier than thou, and you have a Clark who comes across like an ineffective idiot.

Bruce is a little more acceptable considering his more pathological response to killing, but then they went and had him be partially responsible for the OMAC fiasco and then never really addressed it. Instead of offering a nuanced conflict between them, that just makes Bruce look like the biggest douche in the universe. Rucka's (and only Rucka's) writing of Diana aside, the whole thing was a mess for the Trinity.

Yeah, a lot of stuff at the time seemed to be a very purposeful hatchet job on Bruce for awhile, which is a shame, because for quite awhile there I did like Rucka's writing.

[KoriandrJean]

It's a theory. But I maintain that the reason for Bruce's anger is the simple one of it breaking the 'no killing' rule. Also it just builds on top of Bruce's existing anger that lead to his creation of Brother Eye: That super-humanity is slowly spiraling out of control and setting itself above human laws. Bruce already had a great deal of resentment towards the various superhumans of the Justice League after Identity Crisis, this was just another notch in the line that proved why Brother Eye was needed.

And how well did that work out?

Batman's Brother Eye gets promptly hijacked by an evil metahuman who used it to destroy an innocent man - and then almost succeeded in mass genocide against the superhero/metahuman community.

Every time Batman had taken "security measures" to protect humanity from "rogue superheroes," they have blown up in his face - and that of his allies - BIG TIME!

[theoneandonly]

And how well did that work out?

Batman's Brother Eye gets promptly hijacked by an evil metahuman who used it to destroy an innocent man - and then almost succeeded in mass genocide against the superhero/metahuman community.

Every time Batman had taken "security measures" to protect humanity from "rogue superheroes," they have blown up in his face - and that of his allies - BIG TIME!

you would think he had learned something from tower of Babel but he had such a sense of holier than thou hypocrisy for being mindwiped of two minutes that he just had to create another plan and have it go west on him. Like he and superman haven't gone overboard in the silver age protecting their need of secrecy by various manipulations.

[Agent Z]

Being that strict with the no kill rule in the first place was pretty much setting themselves up for trouble. But as DochaDocha pointed out, there are prior moments where Clark has witnessed her killing in combat and, despite not being 100% comfortable with it, also didn't act judgmental towards her. He's also killed himself. Add to the fact that he was the one being used as a killing tool who beat her up, and not being able to offer a valid alternative while acting holier than thou, and you have a Clark who comes across like an ineffective idiot.

Bruce is a little more acceptable considering his more pathological response to killing, but then they went and had him be partially responsible for the OMAC fiasco and then never really addressed it. Instead of offering a nuanced conflict between them, that just makes Bruce look like the biggest douche in the universe. Rucka's (and only Rucka's) writing of Diana aside, the whole thing was a mess for the Trinity.

In fairness to Rucka, he did have Clark be a bit more conflicted about it in Adventures of Superman.

[Agent Z]

you would think he had learned something from tower of Babel but he had such a sense of holier than thou hypocrisy for being mindwiped of two minutes that he just had to create another plan and have it go west on him. Like he and superman haven't gone overboard in the silver age protecting their need of secrecy by various manipulations.

Yeah, if anything, I could see Bruce and Clark doing those mindwipes instead of Dinah or Zatanna. Got to protect the Trinity I guess.

[SiegePerilous02]

In fairness to Rucka, he did have Clark be a bit more conflicted about it in Adventures of Superman.

Fans don't want a conflicted Superman though, at least not at that stage in his career. Not when he is meant to be the pillar of the community and everyone else is more sure of themselves than he is.

Yeah, if anything, I could see Bruce and Clark doing those mindwipes instead of Dinah or Zatanna. Got to protect the Trinity I guess.

In the Silver Age, every member of the JL would have been fine with it. Which in some ways seems preferable to writing it with so much tedious angst.

In the modern age, I'm not sure there is anything to back the interpretation that Bruce and Clark would be ok with mind wipes. And "protecting" the Trinity didn't stop them from getting the worst of it in that period. Hal and Dinah both reacted to Bruce negatively in their books despite the fact that they held him down and wiped his mind, though I honestly can't blame Johns or Simone for not wanting to throw their favorites under the bus either.

[Crawford Crow]

Or could it be that Batman is jealous because Wonder Woman has the guts to do what needs to be done, and Batman is a wimp. "Good Lord! Choke!! I can't do it!" In case I need to be more obvious ... Joker desperately needs to be destroyed. Wonder Woman's problem is gone forever. Batman's problem keeps coming back. Why? Because Joker is one of DC's best money makers.

[theoneandonly]

I wonder if mindwiping seems the more humane solution for dealing with the powerful supervillains who just keep on escaping? mindwipe them or kill them seem to be the only solutions to their killing spree but even killing someone like the joker doesn't work for batman as it is shown in countdown that he keeps on returning from dying each time he is killed. seems like there is no end to supercrime in comics. even the pulp heroes coudnt stop their villains permanently and they kept returning even if you wee the shadow or doc savage. come to think of it doc savage and the shadow have also fallen victim to the same plot devices as the Trinity when they clash with each other over their methods and misunderstandings in the sinister shadow. no crime fighter can escape these stereotypes the shadow knows!