Wonder Woman #219

[history79]

Comments

[q99]

This set up a pretty interesting conflict.

Granted, it wasn't resolved very well (in that the ending was pretty much 'everyone agrees not to talk about it without changing their stances), but it works as a test of the no-kill rule. Person under lasso of truth says the way to prevent Superman from being turned into killing machine is to kill them.

[icon_uk]

But why would she assume that Max is right? A truthful answer is not necessarily a comprehensive one, it's based on what Max knows, and he's far from being an authority on the means of neutralising powers open to the entire DCU.

It would have been more interesting to have her give up the lasso until she could find another solution, but no, they turned her into someone who murders a man (not a mythical monster, those she has killed before) solely for the sake of expediency.

[arthur_wynne]

Hardly murder, let alone "for the sake of expediency". This was self-defence and the defence of others, considering how powerful Superman is and how ironclad Max' control was. It's true that between Zatanna, the Martian Manhunter, and all the other people in the DCU with access to relevant powers and technologies, it seems implausible that no other solution could work, and that's part of why I dislike this story and most like it -they drag the characters down by forcing them into artificial no-win situations. But as presented? No jury in the world would convict her, even if an alternate solution could theoretically exist. (Given that they were reading the full story rather than watching edited video footage, I suppose I should say - gah, the fallout from this story was infuriating.)

[icon_uk]

"Self-defence" doesn't work because the lasso had neutralised his powers at that point,

As such, when you, and you alone, decide that someone should die, without recourse to the law, and when there are other alternatives open, it's murder.

[arthur_wynne]

The story tries very hard to set up and make us buy into a binary dilemma: Kill Max or allow him to rampage using mind-controlled Superman.

Now, this is a _false_ dilemma, and I don't like the story because I think, as it seems you also do, that the story is actually being really lazy about it. In fact, multiple feasible options exist that could at least be tried before resorting to killing. As such, yes; murder.

But that is not reading the story on its own terms. In the fallout from this, nobody ever brings up any concrete alternative options in-story -it's treated only as an ideological and ethical issue. Either Wonder Woman "did what she had to do", or she "should have found another way" (with no suggestion that any interlocutor has any idea of what that might be, just that "superheroes don't kill".)

And if you accept the dilemma as valid, then yes - killing Max was the right thing to do and I struggle to see a sensible argument to the contrary. How forced and distasteful this is, and how idiotically the issue was handled as the story went forward, is what makes it a bad story in my opinion.

[daningram.insanejournal.com]

What alternatives did she have?

Besides Superman, Max had Brother Eye, an army of OMACs and Checkmate all at his command. None of them would be ideal while WW sought a solution.

Diana's resources/recourse were extremely limited. Magic was in disarray, so no go there. The League was functionally disbanded, so no help there.

Max was an immediate threat, to her, to Clark and every meta-human Max was targeting. The sheer power that Max had at his command made him an ongoing and deadly threat, even restrained.

WW only had Max stopped for a moment

[jeremyp]

Honestly, I can't treat the story as a legitimate ethical dilemma. The whole thing overthrows the nature of the characters and the established parameters of the DC universe in order to manufacture a heavy handed, simplistic ethical debate.

For me, this whole story and the follow up represents Wonder Woman, Batman and Superman at their worst, without any real rationale, except that the editors want it to happen.

[lego_joker]

To be fair, the "established parameters" of the DC Universe have always been a giant mess. Reconciling the worlds and moral axes of Superman, Batman, and Wonder Woman is a Herculean task in and of itself, and I frequently believe it would be better for everyone involved if they were sequestered onto their own Earths instead of having to play in the same sandbox.

Like, in a shared DC universe, does any murder Batman solve actually matter? How does he know Mr. Mxyzptlk didn't poof them into existence two seconds ago just to screw around with him? And don't get me started on the old "why don't the Amazons share their super-awesome healing ray with humanity?" chestnut...

[q99]

-But why would she assume that Max is right? A truthful answer is not necessarily a comprehensive one, it's based on what Max knows, and he's far from being an authority on the means of neutralising powers open to the entire DCU.-

He is someone who knows Wonder Woman and her powers, Superman and his... heck, actually leads Checkmate and has a database of the vast majority of superhuman individuals.

So... he actually is a fairly reasonable authority (combined with Wonder Woman herself having a lot of knowledge and not knowing a way to break it- even the lasso wasn't and it normally is among the higher-tier answers to this), or at least if there is a method, it is on the very very low accessibility side that no-one present knew about.

[daningram.insanejournal.com]

Agreed.

In terms of sheer power, I think Max's then situation was unmatched by any other earth based villain.

He had soft power in the form of Checkmate and Brother Eye. He had an army on the OMACs, and a nuclear power in the form of Superman

[q99]

And it's not like his mental powers *only* worked on Superman- he had Superman fully conditioned so all it took was a trigger, but the reason Wonder Woman was there by herself? So Max couldn't mess with the other available leaguers (and not everyone was available at the time, but a few were).

Diana was the counter. If she failed, it'd be massively harder for someone else to try.

[janegray]

not a mythical monster, those she has killed before

See, this is something I could never understand. Assuming those monsters are sentient, then why would killing them be okay but killing evil men be wrong? What makes humans so damn special that killing them is considered unacceptable, while other sentient, intelligent and cognizant creatures can be killed off en masse without it tarnishing the hero's morals?

[icon_uk]

AFAIK Your average mythical monster (especially the sort that attacks Wonder Woman) tends not to be sentient and are some variation of their animal components (if they have them) like the Minotaur, the Harpies, the Sirens...

So the monsters have tended to be of the demonic minion/mindless beasts variety rather than sentient beings, who she approaches the same way she does humans. After all, Diana eventually befriended and employed a minotaur as the chef at the Themiscriyan Embassy.

It's a fine line I grant you especially depending on which variation they go for. Like Cyclops, Fauns and so on.

Donna has killed one of the Gorgons that had murdered several of her friends (Though ironically it was Stheno or Eurayle, who were immortal (as opposed to Medusa, who was mortal) so they have an "out" there.

And if we start getting into the theological discussions about whether monsters from Greek myth have souls, the way we've seen humans do (The original Amazons being formed from preserved souls) then we're into a more complicated topic. :)

[janegray]

The average mythical monster is definitely sentient. More often then not, they used to be humans (or at least nymphs) who got turned into horrible creatures as punishment for some "crime" (sometimes the "crime" is "I don't want to have sex with the god that is stalking me"). The description of the transformation only ever involves looks (so it's not like zombies, where they lose their minds), and it's fairly common for the heroes have conversations with them and to learn about their family tree before killing them.

[balbanes]

Huh. This is a variation of an old ethics problem:

Out of control train is barreling down on a small town, where it will kill all 500 residents. You're standing by a switch that can divert the train onto another track. Unfortunately, an old-timey villain has tied an innocent victim to the track a half mile down, such that diverting the train will kill them. The train is ten seconds from the switch. Do you pull it?

This seemed an easy solution to me: of course you pull the switch, because either way someone will die, and it's better 1 person die than 500. But I've heard many people argue that pulling the switch means you killed the one person, while not pulling the switch means you didn't kill anyone, and therefore no switch. Or something-- I never understood the contrary opinion. Alls I know is that this problem and its variants reveal a surprising divide in how people approach ethics.

[Aside: the variation in the comic is that the "victim" on the track caused the whole problem, and could save the 500 people at any time (and thus himself) but refuses to do so. Which makes my preferred solution all the more "obvious."]

[lbd_nytetrayn]

The contrary opinion is that inaction is not an action in itself. By not doing anything at all, you're absolving yourself of responsibility for any further outcome.

It's not a stance I agree with, mind.

[balbanes]

See, I understand the words, but the logic makes no sense. It's like saying "Two plus two equals fish."

Well, it's more like trying to Rules Lawyer your way into heaven. "The 10 Commandments say not to kill, so I didn't kill anyone. Totally not my fault if hundreds of people died as a result. Now let me in."

[lbd_nytetrayn]

Yeah, basically. It's a very technical approach to it.

[starwolf_oakley]

I think the reason this situation bugged Batman so much (aside from the obvious) is that it put his "no kill" rule into the "put up or shut up" zone at the same time Jason Todd was building up to the same thing.

To add extra angst to this story, Batman should have said (in a caption box, of course): "There was another way. We always find another way. Something else could have been done to stop Maxwell Lord other than Diana killing him. And I have absolutely no idea what that could have been."

[philippos42]

Diana was killing sentient beings when forced to do so by circumstance back in the Pérez run in the 1980's. This is not really a departure for her.

I suspect she didn't kill Maxwell Lord, anyway--if that is not Maxwell Lord. That is probably some kind of evil clone of Max, who may have killed the real Max already.

She gets some credit for trying to end it another way.

[korvar]

No, it was the actual, real Maxwell Lord. He stayed dead until that time Necron brought a bunch of people back from the dead.