Diana As God of War

[Hawk80]

This mantle suits Wonder Woman like a glove. People need to cease this simple-minded "war is evil" nonsense. I'm astonished that people who feel that way read Superhero comics. Superheroes are based around the morality of War as peace needs to be fought for. This paradox is no stranger to Wonder Woman. Everlasting peace is a silly, utopian dream that cannot be attained, it runs counter to the competitive, cyclical nature of life. I've always personally seen Wonder Woman as a pragmatist which totally differentiates her from Superman. Sure War is a heavy, painful burden but I trust Wonder Woman is tough enough to shoulder it.

But I suppose next time Brainiac invades the Earth, the Justice League should just watch him destroy it from the Watchtower, for War is unbecoming the likes of Wonder Woman, see how that works out for you

Then there is no difference between "fighting evil" or "being a warrior" or even "warrior goddess" and "embodying the force of WAR" or "being WAR". Crystal clear.

[Amazon Swordsman]

Interesting concept, piss poor execution. Like others have said, what does it mean to be a God, and furthermore a God of War to Diana? It's almost like my issue with the Zeus parentage thing. It's almost like they didn't think of the long-term implications of these concepts and just said HEY! Let's slap this on WW and it'll make her more bad ass!

I just don't see what this new title does for her character development, other than further outlining the dichotomy of being a "peaceful soldier". WW didn't need a new title for that to be honest. She just needed better writing. What does her new found divinity do for her power level? What new powers does she have, if any? Now that she's the daughter of a God, and has taken a God's mantle, where does she now stand among DC's powerhouses?

Honestly, I hope that the title is removed from her at some point. She should either go berserk from a growing, repressed Amazonian spirit emerging in her, forcing her to denounce it, or have another God remove it from her body for interfering with human affairs, kinda like how she lost the Goddess of Truth mantle.

[Dr. Poison]

I think Diana becoming the God of War was shock-value at best. After all, Azzarello didn't really flesh it out. He got people talking about the change but then dropped the ball with it leaving it to other writers like Soule, Johns, and Finch to try and figure out. Soule handled it the best by jettisoning it and having Diana become the God of Peace instead. Please just make this abomination go away already. Diana should never have a title inclusive of the word "war" having been a champion of peace for so long.

[Marquesse_de_Sade]

Then there is no difference between "fighting evil" or "being a warrior" or even "warrior goddess" and "embodying the force of WAR" or "being WAR". Crystal clear.

Actually no, I'm not entirely sure I understood that reasoning. I will say however that Evil are the instigators. War is the calamitous consequence of when their greed is met with resistance. Particularly in comic books, wars are typically fought between the Bad Guys and the Good Guys, both parties are intervenients. Some War Gods might ignite wars and revel in them, but for Wonder Woman war is a means of protection. War is the struggle to stay alive

[SofNascimento]

"They made a desolation, and they called it peace."

Yep. That's just about the only way war can bring "peace." When one side annihilates the other completely.

And there was no lasting peace in the Roman Empire. People kept on rebelling against Rome and even fought amongst themselves.

Tacitus was boring.

And yes, there was a lasting peace. Especially compared to what came before and after in Europe. But obviously, the ancient world can't be seen with modern eyes. But what holds true before all else is that there can be no peace without a capcity for war, and here is another roman quote: "let him who desires peace prepare for war". That was true then and still true now.

And that is what Diana should be about. Arthur in The Warlord Chronicles by Bernard Cornwell is really the best example of such a character, one that loves peace but is ready to make war.

[Outside_85]

Well the person both Kratos and Diana took the title from was characterized as a bloodthirsty sociopath. I don't like it but there is precedent for it.

Eh no, GoW Ares went mad and the Olympians thought the best course of action was to get a bloodthirsty sociopath to kill him, who then went around and slaughtered anything and everyone he came across.
New 52 Ares, the most we saw of him, he was a tired old cynic that was frequently off his face on alchohol. And yet, we heard from Demeter/Harvest that he used to sing on Olympus. I've made the comparison before, but the New 52 gods are more like Gaiman's Endless, they have area's of responsibility assigned to them, it shapes their manner and powers but they are not the cause of the events they represent.

[Agent Z]

Tacitus was boring.

And yes, there was a lasting peace. Especially compared to what came before and after in Europe. But obviously, the ancient world can't be seen with modern eyes. But what holds true before all else is that there can be no peace without a capcity for war, and here is another roman quote: "let him who desires peace prepare for war". That was true then and still true now.

And that is what Diana should be about. Arthur in The Warlord Chronicles by Bernard Cornwell is really the best example of such a character, one that loves peace but is ready to make war.

I don't think that's a valid criticism.

[Agent Z]

Eh no, GoW Ares went mad and the Olympians thought the best course of action was to get a bloodthirsty sociopath to kill him, who then went around and slaughtered anything and everyone he came across.
New 52 Ares, the most we saw of him, he was a tired old cynic that was frequently off his face on alchohol. And yet, we heard from Demeter/Harvest that he used to sing on Olympus. I've made the comparison before, but the New 52 gods are more like Gaiman's Endless, they have area's of responsibility assigned to them, it shapes their manner and powers but they are not the cause of the events they represent.

I was referring to the classical Ares from the myths.

[borntohula]

Well for the right writers it can be very much like the new female thor, a change for explore the character in deep.

I think that Azzarello explained very well what it means for diana, but for sure he won't do the teacher thing. Diana is Diana, no title will matter, she will be herself on the end of the day.

Anyone who doubts this. Why is it then that this dialogue is in the book?

WW#33
First Born: "I name you worthy of me... God of war. Queen of the Amazons. Wonder Woman."
Diana: "My name is Diana. Those other words are just descriptions. Not names."

WW#35
Diana: "I am the daugther of Hippolyta and Zeus. I am the God of war. I am Wonder woman. But I need only be myself."

And these are only two examples.

The run makes it pretty freaking clear it's all about identity. The run even ends things by pointing out that Zeus gave birth to a daughter even if he's seen as the man among men. Guy gets away with being unfaithful forever, no problem. Both Hippolyta and Zola get's the blame... The 4th wall got destroyed quite early in on that subject...

As the book points out. We're vessels. Seed and babies. That it's a shame "some" (the actual sum is many) view fems as the lesser vessel.

And Diana having a mother shouldn't make her lesser...

This mantle suits Wonder Woman like a glove. People need to cease this simple-minded "war is evil" nonsense. I'm astonished that people who feel that way read Superhero comics. Superheroes are based around the morality of War as peace needs to be fought for. This paradox is no stranger to Wonder Woman. Everlasting peace is a silly, utopian dream that cannot be attained, it runs counter to the competitive, cyclical nature of life. I've always personally seen Wonder Woman as a pragmatist which totally differentiates her from Superman. Sure War is a heavy, painful burden but I trust Wonder Woman is tough enough to shoulder it.

It ties perfectly into the run's big theme of duality (A common feministic theme... Whoopsie), with the "Fight for peace" (only one example.) thing.

Also as a homage to the original.



Also her heart being in it (a big responsibility) when War's wasn't. But it's similar how Superman stopped being working class after Morrison got off writing AC.

[Agent Z]

Anyone who doubts this. Why is it then that this dialogue is in the book?

WW#33
First Born: "I name you worthy of me... God of war. Queen of the Amazons. Wonder Woman."
Diana: "My name is Diana. Those other words are just descriptions. Not names."

WW#35
Diana: "I am the daugther of Hippolyta and Zeus. I am the God of war. I am Wonder woman. But I need only be myself."

And these are only two examples.

The run makes it pretty freaking clear it's all about identity. The run even ends things by pointing out that Zeus gave birth to a daughter even if he's seen as the man among men. Guy gets away with being unfaithful forever, no problem. Both Hippolyta and Zola get's the blame... The 4th wall got destroyed quite early in on that subject...

As the book points out. We're vessels. Seed and babies. That it's a shame "some" (the actual sum is many) view fems as the lesser vessel.

And Diana having a mother shouldn't make her lesser...



It ties perfectly into the run's big theme of duality (A common feministic theme... Whoopsie), with the "Fight for peace" (only one example.) thing.

Also as a homage to the original.



Also her heart being in it (a big responsibility) when War's wasn't. But it's similar how Superman stopped being working class after Morrison got off writing AC.

At the risk of going off topic, I've actually seen comments by people who say that the Zeus origin and God of War title do make Diana a superior hero. So I think even fans of Azz have missed the point he was trying to make.

[SofNascimento]

I don't think that's a valid criticism.

I could say that Tacitus, as pretty much all anciant historians, had bias and his work reflect personal views and agendas. Therefore, his statement about the roman peace is nothing more than a reflection of his view of the empire and is neither a fact nor a general representation of how people (especially the elite) viewed the accomplishments of Rome. But it's me who is being boring now.

[borntohula]

At the risk of going off topic, I've actually seen comments by people who say that the Zeus origin and God of War title do make Diana a superior hero. So I think even fans of Azz have missed the point he was trying to make.

Azz-fans or not... --sure I get your point? Is there some math I'v missed out on ? Is it from the same fan math theory that says "if someone dislikes Azz/Chiang's run, then they must like the Finchs'!" ?

My point is that the dialogue I mention above is in the run, and probably for a reason. Her titles or blood, it should make zill difference what she's about. She's Diana. She's -at times tough- love.

[Vanguard-01]

Tacitus was boring.

And yes, there was a lasting peace. Especially compared to what came before and after in Europe. But obviously, the ancient world can't be seen with modern eyes. But what holds true before all else is that there can be no peace without a capcity for war, and here is another roman quote: "let him who desires peace prepare for war". That was true then and still true now.

And that is what Diana should be about. Arthur in The Warlord Chronicles by Bernard Cornwell is really the best example of such a character, one that loves peace but is ready to make war.

Nope. There was no lasting peace in the Roman Empire. People resented being conquered. Rebellions were common. Admittedly, they were usually very short, since they usually featured poorly trained, poorly armed rebels going up against the greatest military force in the world at the time.

But a lasting peace means that there is less of a cause for conflict. The Romans simply made it clear that conflict wouldn't go well for anyone who resisted them. That's not peace. That's intimidation.

[hellacre]

This mantle suits Wonder Woman like a glove. People need to cease this simple-minded "war is evil" nonsense. I'm astonished that people who feel that way read Superhero comics. Superheroes are based around the morality of War as peace needs to be fought for. This paradox is no stranger to Wonder Woman. Everlasting peace is a silly, utopian dream that cannot be attained, it runs counter to the competitive, cyclical nature of life. I've always personally seen Wonder Woman as a pragmatist which totally differentiates her from Superman. Sure War is a heavy, painful burden but I trust Wonder Woman is tough enough to shoulder it.

But I suppose next time Brainiac invades the Earth, the Justice League should just watch him destroy it from the Watchtower, for War is unbecoming the likes of Wonder Woman, see how that works out for you

Well Brainiac is in Future's End. Azzarello himself is involved in writing it and they have barely used the Wonder Woman character. much less recall she is God of War. You can't say it fits the character when nothing really is done with it. Nothing much was fleshed out ( bar Soule who tried in WW FE) and we know little about what it means to the universe and what are her powers. It is pointless title so far if they cannot use her effectively in a universe wide event. So saying it fits her like a glove when she has done virtually little with it to influence the DCU or even her own title is premature.

As a warrior for peace / Zeus daughter she would have fought Brainiac anyway. She didn't need a God's mantle to be Wonder Woman. I agree with some here. It should just be for the short term to contrast her to Ares and show that she will never be like the Olympians ( that is what makes her Diana) and she does not need/ want Godhood in the first place to be effective and then let it be tossed out.

[Silvanus]

Nonetheless, contrary to wharsome have said, War cannot create Peace. Read your history. War is great for solving short-term problems (an enemy is invading your country, another nation is growing stronger than yours, etc.) but it, by itself, is lousy at solving long-term problems.

"By itself," sure. But that doesn't mean that war, or preparation for war, can't help to bring or maintain peace in a given situation. I wouldn't expect Wonder Woman to solve long-term international problems "by herself" either; I'd be happy to see her defeat an invader, get diplomats to the bargaining table and rally the people of both parties to work on the underlying problems.

Take World War I, for example. The Germans were clear and unmistakable aggressors. They attacked other nations. The world united against them and their allies. The Germans were defeated. The victorious nations then smacked the Germans with sanctions and restrictions that were designed to basically keep Germany reduced to a Third World nation. Brettc1 said it a while back: those "peace terms" with Germany were nothing less than the continuing of the war against Germany through politics and economics, rather than military aggression.

As you say, the English-French-American war effort succeeded in ending the other side's aggression in the short term. It succeeded in part because President Wilson led the U.S. into what he promoted, essentially, as a "war to end war." That was idealistic and ideological, but I don't think he was ethically wrong to make that argument; there was aggression that needed to be stopped, and trying to make the war an opportunity to create a peace-building League of Nations was a good idea. But the political leaders and diplomats failed to negotiate the kind of peace that could last. That wasn't a failure of just war to help lead to peace; the soldiers and their generals did what they could. It was a failure of political leadership and diplomacy.

World War II happened because Hitler played on the German people's anger and bitterness at the entirely unfair sanctions that had been imposed upon them after the end of World War I. The average German soldier did NOT believe he was part of some grand world domination scheme. He believed he was going out to avenge the humiliations the world had heaped upon his country for decades. He would've felt just as justified in this war as the Allies did in defending themselves against this unprovoked aggression.

Sure. But the resolution of WWII did lead to a lasting peace (so far) between America, Japan, and the major powers of Europe. Of course, it also led to the Cold War; but--in Europe at least--even that was relatively "peaceful" compared to another all-out shooting war. As you say, war couldn't bring peace by itself; peaceful efforts to rebuild Europe and Japan were essential. But the regime changes broought by war were crucial first steps.

Some wars must be fought. It's true. But it is not the war that will create a lasting peace. War can only end the immediate conflict. It does not, indeed, it CANNOT, address the true causes of the conflict in the first place. It is ONLY through politics and diplomacy that a true, lasting peace can be achieved.

So, no, the idea that Diana can be the God of War and try to use her power to bring about peace is simply not true.

That depends, for me, on whether the god of war only has the power to make war or whether she has the power to govern and restrain war to some extent (the way a storm god might have the power to calm storms as well as bring storms). Even bloodthirsty, raging Ares was prayed to for restraint, at least in the Homeric Hymn to Ares, which asks him to "Restrain also the keen fury of my heart which provokes me to tread the ways of blood-curdling strife. Rather, O blessed one, give you me boldness to abide within the harmless laws of peace, avoiding strife and hatred and the violent fiends of death." That wasn't the way Ares was most often thought of, but Athena was of course a much more constructive deity of war, and Ares' counterpart, Mars, "represented military power as a way to secure peace" ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_(mythology) ); he was not only a bringer of victory but a guarantor of treaties, so diplomacy, to some extent, fell within his sphere. You can say that he represented a lie, because"a way to secure peace" is not what war really fundamentally is; and certainly, it was, to say the least, an ideological rather than "objective" view of war. But maybe he also represented an aspiration, because there were Romans who wanted the empire to be more constructive and and peaceful in its relations with neighbors and defeated foes. The gods don't always represent the world as it is; they can represent the world as it is perceived or feared to be, or even the world as we aspire to make it.

Some people seem to think that Wonder Woman has to be the kind of War Ares was because she's replacing Ares--but I don't see that. She's a new War, potentially representing a new point of view on War. If Ares' Roman counterpart could represent war as a means of peace, why can't his 21st century successor?

If she had become the God of Justice? Sure. Justice can play a role in bringing peace. But the God of War can only fight wars. Not prevent them from happening in the first place.

Yeah, I wouldn't mind seeing her eventually trade thrones with Athena. "Goddess of Justice" could work because, just as a phrase taken by itself, it sounds more heroic and benovolent but it still includes interesting ambiguities--like retributive justice vs. the gentler kinds. Or, she could be recognized as the goddess of war and peace (or "peace and war," so it won't sound like her domain is limited to a Tolstoy novel).