She can fly. With Supes incapacitated, she has plenty of time to get a head start. Scoop up Max, fly away, explore alternatives to killing him. As I already said, exploring those alternatives wouldn't take any longer than asking "Okay, killing you is one way, are there any OTHER ways?"
But I guess what it comes down to is that DC--editorial or Rucka or whoever--wanted to write a story where Diana killed a bad guy, because that was supposed to make her cooler and edgier and convince more people to buy her book.
There are plenty of ways this story could have ended with the good guys winning and with Lord still being alive. Under another writer, Wonder Woman would have said "No, I'm not doing that," and she would have used her brain to figure out a way of restoring Superman to his old self without resorting to murder.
But this writer wasn't interested in that. This writer wanted to make Wondy a cold-blooded killer, and wanted to say to all of us "Hey, there are times when it's totally okay to kill in cold blood. She was right to do it. Also, maybe this will bring in readers who weren't interested before and who now see Wonder Woman as a badass."
Now, there are worse things that Diana could have done. Compared to what Wally West did to Inertia--"I'm not going to kill you, I'm just going to make you a prisoner in your own body and force you to stare at the same thing day after day, month after month, year after year, until you go completely insane and WISH you were dead"--Lord got off easy.
Acknowledging that doesn't make me any happier about Diana's actions here, though. Actually, you know what just came to me? As somebody who "does what's necessary and makes the tough decisions", I have a feeling that if sentencing Max Lord or another villain to the same hellish torture that Inertia went through accomplished some noble goal, Diana wouldn't bat an eyelash about it, or lose any sleep over it. She's just do it and not feel the least bit guilty, because "it was necessary."
no subject
But I guess what it comes down to is that DC--editorial or Rucka or whoever--wanted to write a story where Diana killed a bad guy, because that was supposed to make her cooler and edgier and convince more people to buy her book.
There are plenty of ways this story could have ended with the good guys winning and with Lord still being alive. Under another writer, Wonder Woman would have said "No, I'm not doing that," and she would have used her brain to figure out a way of restoring Superman to his old self without resorting to murder.
But this writer wasn't interested in that. This writer wanted to make Wondy a cold-blooded killer, and wanted to say to all of us "Hey, there are times when it's totally okay to kill in cold blood. She was right to do it. Also, maybe this will bring in readers who weren't interested before and who now see Wonder Woman as a badass."
Now, there are worse things that Diana could have done. Compared to what Wally West did to Inertia--"I'm not going to kill you, I'm just going to make you a prisoner in your own body and force you to stare at the same thing day after day, month after month, year after year, until you go completely insane and WISH you were dead"--Lord got off easy.
Acknowledging that doesn't make me any happier about Diana's actions here, though. Actually, you know what just came to me? As somebody who "does what's necessary and makes the tough decisions", I have a feeling that if sentencing Max Lord or another villain to the same hellish torture that Inertia went through accomplished some noble goal, Diana wouldn't bat an eyelash about it, or lose any sleep over it. She's just do it and not feel the least bit guilty, because "it was necessary."