@The Mighty Monarch said:

@DarthShap said:

@RazzaTazz said:

@DarthShap: A slave lacks among other things freedom of choice. They had a choice here, and they made it

So what is the point? That you cannot free a slave? That is even worse! That was part of the South's argument during the American Civil War!

We have no indication of whether or not they are completely enslaved. Perhaps they ARE allowed to choose to leave if they want, perhaps they ARE allowed to see the surface and experience it to make their decision.

But we don't know. And neither did Wonder Woman. But they respect Hephaestus, and he appears to respect them back.

They are being traded for guns, meaning that they become Hephaistos' propriety. And again with the speculations (and this time, I am pretty sure we will not get the tales of the brothers who chose to leave)...

It is just a badly executed rip-off and Azzarello did not think that much about what it would mean. It worked on Apokolips because it was on a planet scale and have a religious dimension to it (and Waid's Kingdom Come to some extend inspired this conclusion with Apokolips still being a tyrannic dictatorship after Orion's coup because submission to the Gods in in their nature) but here it does not. It is not Apokolips, it is Earth and only a few hundred people at best who do not know any better.

@DarthShap said:

@The Mighty Monarch said:

@DarthShap said:

@RazzaTazz said:

@DarthShap: A slave lacks among other things freedom of choice. They had a choice here, and they made it

So what is the point? That you cannot free a slave? That is even worse! That was part of the South's argument during the American Civil War!

We have no indication of whether or not they are completely enslaved. Perhaps they ARE allowed to choose to leave if they want, perhaps they ARE allowed to see the surface and experience it to make their decision.

But we don't know. And neither did Wonder Woman. But they respect Hephaestus, and he appears to respect them back.

They are being traded for guns, meaning that they become Hephaistos' propriety. And again with the speculations (and this time, I am pretty sure we will not get the tales of the brothers who chose to leave)...

It is just a badly executed rip-off and Azzarello did not think that much about what it would mean. It worked on Apokolips because it was on a planet scale and have a religious dimension to it (and Waid's Kingdom Come to some extend inspired this conclusion with Apokolips still being a tyrannic dictatorship after Orion's coup because submission to the Gods in in their nature) but here it does not. It is not Apokolips, it is Earth and only a few hundred people at best who do not know any better.

So any stories where someone buys a slave in order to set them free is still slavery because "they paid for them so they are technically their property?" Yes, TECHNICALLY they could be Hephaestus' property if he wanted them to be, but are we assuming that he's evil enough to not give them any freedoms? We DON'T KNOW how much freedom he gives them but considering they seem healthy, he hasn't been visibly cruel to them, he knows them by name and they have a variety of names, they actually seem happy and not oppressed; I think its safe to say that him allowing them to be free if they want is A VIABLE THEORY.

@noj said:

@DarthShap said:

@noj said:

@DarthShap: Look man you gotta stop looking at the Amazons and judging them so harshly. Sure from our point of view it looks terribly evil and wrong but this is from a 21st century POV. The Amazons are still practicing traditions that were not uncommon in their time period. Their isolation from the outside world basically ensured that they didn't move beyond these practices and develop with the rest of the civilized world.You cant really call it evil without basically calling all the people and cultures throughout history that led a similar life inherently evil as well. Its just their way of life. They are a society stuck in the past.

Except they were described as monsters even then. THEY WERE THE VILLAINS OF THEIR STORIES!

I wasnt solely talking about the Amazons of myth, I was also talking about real world cultures and people who practiced similar traditions, like the Spartans. You cant REALLY call these people truly evil, it was just their way of life. It is how they were raised. You can look at the Amazons in a similar light.

And Spartans killed their mates and their children solely on the basis of their gender?

Bottom line, the Amazons were invented to appear as monsters even to the Spartans. They made up people so cruel that even the Spartans would cheer when Achilles or Hercules would slay them.

Right and wrong are points of view, to some extent. The US has the death penalty and guns, Europe does not. But the Amazons always were evil because they were invented to be evil.

I find it so cool that in 2012, we debate about which type of slavery is the best for the slave.

Okay, I skipped all the comments up to this point, after the 1st page, but will read them later - my apologies if I repeat anyone. Personally, I think this is a wonderful change, but I have said about as much as I can about it in the comments of the WW # 7 review. I will say this again though: drastic change in comics usually means they just didn't know what to do with the character before, so they've thrown everything out and started from a new approach. I think this is cool, and I think there are going to be some very classic, mythical/ fable story twists that will explain away the biggest complaints about WW so far. I think it's going to turn out to be very, very cool.

@DarthShap: Simple end to your argument. Yes he bought them. But that also means he could free them, since they are now his property. Also, since he bought them as infants, he couldn't just abandon them (amazons being super powered by their nature) so he raised them. And they decided to stay with them when they grew old enough to make their own decisions (as evidenced when they stood up for him when he was attacked). So where is the moral grey area? I see none at all

Thats what I get when I read this issue. you just seem hell bent on judging Hephaestus as a slaver.

@DIOMJK: He's just bent on finding every possible reason he can to slam Azzarello's run on Wonder Woman.

@DIOMJK said:

@DarthShap: Simple end to your argument. Yes he bought them. But that also means he could free them, since they are now his property. Also, since he bought them as infants, he couldn't just abandon them (amazons being super powered by their nature) so he raised them. And they decided to stay with them when they grew old enough to make their own decisions (as evidenced when they stood up for him when he was attacked). So where is the moral grey area? I see none at all

Thats what I get when I read this issue. you just seem hell bent on judging Hephaestus as a slaver.

So your point is that it is better to buy them young and treat them right so they stay loyal to you.

Got it.

It amazes me how little people actually seem to read the book in relation to what was before. WW hasn't gotten a total reboot, all of these changes are things that can exist alongside with the older history. The Amazon babies is something the island just chose to keep from Diana, same way they kept who her father was a secret, added it only happens once every 30-33 years and if Diana is around the same age, she wouldn't have noticed it.

Whatever utopia Paradise Island used to be, is still here, this is just the dark secret. Diana hasn't changed, the world around her has just come up with some really nasty surprises lately.

@DarthShap said:

@DIOMJK said:

@DarthShap: Simple end to your argument. Yes he bought them. But that also means he could free them, since they are now his property. Also, since he bought them as infants, he couldn't just abandon them (amazons being super powered by their nature) so he raised them. And they decided to stay with them when they grew old enough to make their own decisions (as evidenced when they stood up for him when he was attacked). So where is the moral grey area? I see none at all

Thats what I get when I read this issue. you just seem hell bent on judging Hephaestus as a slaver.

So your point is that it is better to buy them young and treat them right so they stay loyal to you.

Got it.

It's better to SAVE THEM FROM BEING KILLED so maybe you can give them an actual life. Should he buy them and then just dump them in an orphanage?

@The Mighty Monarch said:

@DIOMJK: He's just bent on finding every possible reason he can to slam Azzarello's run on Wonder Woman.

No, but he is a great writer. The execution is top notch.

It just does not make any sense that Diana would turn up so well. Pretty much everything else is a destruction of 70 years of continuity. The rip-off is obvious but does not work within the context of this story.

@DarthShap said:

I really do not think that it was the point. Because you do no cease to be a slave just because your master treats you right, especially if you do not know any better.

The original point showed that Superman could not win because Apokolips had been completely corrupted by Darkseid, to the point where he was considered to be God by the people.

The point of the rip-off is that not everything is black or white and that there are some shades of grey. But I am not sure it works here because to say in 2012 that sometimes slavery is "grey" is just stupid.

It's not about "the master treating you right"-- It's questioning the notion of freedom, asking what it means to be a slave, and looking critically at the role of the liberator.

You can think of it as a parallel to any of America's recent wars to "free" people enslaved to their totalitarian governments. Or think of freedom as defined in our everyday lives-- aren't we slaves in some way to material things; we're slaves to the economy, a system out of our control, and slaves to our jobs so we can (often barely) earn enough to maintain a level of happiness (usually defined by the spending of monies on material things). But we endure because true freedom is chaotic, unpredictable and new, and most people would sooner have a safe and familiar illusion of freedom.

You're thinking of notions of slavery and freedom in very narrow terms, you need to think of it here (but also in general) in a more abstract sense-- what does it mean to free from everything we know?

@DIOMJK: I wasn't judging Hephaestus, I was judging the women who sell their children to him, this is not a moral grey area. This is selling their children into slavery, even the most pro slavery civilizations in history would call people who sell their own children into slavery evil.

@DarthShap: Thats not what I meant and you know it. The only way I even see a slavery angle by the end of the book is that they call him master, but historically when you learn a trade you have a master and his apprentice(s). Besides that, I see a man raising a bunch of children who would have otherwise been killed over their "birth defect", as it were, the same way his mother tried to kill him when she threw him off of mount Olympus for being ugly (according to greek mythology). He's raising them out of compassion, and they reciprocated. So what if he had to "buy" them in order to keep their mothers from killing them. Check your civil war history, there existed men who bought slaves in an attempt to rescue them from a far worse fate than if they let them be. If you don't like the story, fine, but don't attempt to make unfounded claims because you're upset over the direction of a story after a reboot.

@The Mighty Monarch: You're right. Then again, I have no insight into Azarrello's creative process--I've never even read any of his prior work.

@The Mighty Monarch said:

@DarthShap said:

@DIOMJK said:

@DarthShap: Simple end to your argument. Yes he bought them. But that also means he could free them, since they are now his property. Also, since he bought them as infants, he couldn't just abandon them (amazons being super powered by their nature) so he raised them. And they decided to stay with them when they grew old enough to make their own decisions (as evidenced when they stood up for him when he was attacked). So where is the moral grey area? I see none at all

Thats what I get when I read this issue. you just seem hell bent on judging Hephaestus as a slaver.

So your point is that it is better to buy them young and treat them right so they stay loyal to you.

Got it.

It's better to SAVE THEM FROM BEING KILLED so maybe you can give them an actual life. Should he buy them and then just dump them in an orphanage?

Yes. What's wrong with that? Sure beats working in the same confined place for all your life never seeing the light of day, people of the opposite sex etc...

And that is not the point. Azzarello should not have ripped it off if he did not have the proper context to do so. He wrote himself into that corner.

@DarthShap said:

@The Mighty Monarch said:

@DarthShap said:

@DIOMJK said:

@DarthShap: Simple end to your argument. Yes he bought them. But that also means he could free them, since they are now his property. Also, since he bought them as infants, he couldn't just abandon them (amazons being super powered by their nature) so he raised them. And they decided to stay with them when they grew old enough to make their own decisions (as evidenced when they stood up for him when he was attacked). So where is the moral grey area? I see none at all

Thats what I get when I read this issue. you just seem hell bent on judging Hephaestus as a slaver.

So your point is that it is better to buy them young and treat them right so they stay loyal to you.

Got it.

It's better to SAVE THEM FROM BEING KILLED so maybe you can give them an actual life. Should he buy them and then just dump them in an orphanage?

Yes. What's wrong with that? Sure beats working in the same confined place for all your life never seeing the light of day, people of the opposite sex etc...

And that is not the point. Azzarello should not have ripped it off if he did not have the proper context to do so. He wrote himself into that corner.

You have no idea if he kept them locked away in the foundry. That was never established. And the amazons race has been established as having super powers dumping them at an orphanage is a horrible idea. A place where they are separated from their world in a place that won't understand them, unable to know or explain there history or the abilities they wield? kind of crappy life. and since they seem to be happy (as they explicitly state) and treat him like a father, I think the right choice is obvious

@DIOMJK said:

@DarthShap: Thats not what I meant and you know it. The only way I even see a slavery angle by the end of the book is that they call him master, but historically when you learn a trade you have a master and his apprentice(s). Besides that, I see a man raising a bunch of children who would have otherwise been killed over their "birth defect", as it were, the same way his mother tried to kill him when she threw him off of mount Olympus for being ugly (according to greek mythology). He's raising them out of compassion, and they reciprocated. So what if he had to "buy" them in order to keep their mothers from killing them. Check your civil war history, there existed men who bought slaves in an attempt to rescue them from a far worse fate than if they let them be. If you don't like the story, fine, but don't attempt to make unfounded claims because you're upset over the direction of a story after a reboot.

Slave owners never think they do something wrong. That does not mean they do not own slaves. You do know there are alternatives to owning slaves, like freeing them and employing them.

Just saying.

Gods do as they please.

@DarthShap said:

@The Mighty Monarch said:

@DarthShap said:

@DIOMJK said:

@DarthShap: Simple end to your argument. Yes he bought them. But that also means he could free them, since they are now his property. Also, since he bought them as infants, he couldn't just abandon them (amazons being super powered by their nature) so he raised them. And they decided to stay with them when they grew old enough to make their own decisions (as evidenced when they stood up for him when he was attacked). So where is the moral grey area? I see none at all

Thats what I get when I read this issue. you just seem hell bent on judging Hephaestus as a slaver.

So your point is that it is better to buy them young and treat them right so they stay loyal to you.

Got it.

It's better to SAVE THEM FROM BEING KILLED so maybe you can give them an actual life. Should he buy them and then just dump them in an orphanage?

Yes. What's wrong with that? Sure beats working in the same confined place for all your life never seeing the light of day, people of the opposite sex etc...

And that is not the point. Azzarello should not have ripped it off if he did not have the proper context to do so. He wrote himself into that corner.

Yes, because we know for certain that they never see the light of day or the opposite sex. We absolutely know that for a fact, right? OH WAIT.

Wait..... ripped off... No. This is NOTHING like that Apokalyps story you keep saying he 'Ripped off.' That one had a bleak tone of an entire world that functions on the basis of psychologically shaping someone to worship their 'God.' They had any and all potential for free will removed. THIS is a story that shows Wonder Woman how you can't leap to conclusions without knowing all the facts, because things aren't always as black and white as they seem. Because she had no idea if they are allowed to see the light of day or not, or if they are allowed to be free. OH WAIT, these are all things that YOU DON'T KNOW EITHER AND ARE ALSO JUMPING TO CONCLUSIONS BASED ON ASSUMPTIONS.

Story wise, amazing choice. You and I know, theres going to be some Male Amazons who will leave and stop working for him, maybe some already have. I mean they make God like weapons, someones gotta think of the potential here.

@DarthShap: Hephaestus being a god more than likely views humans as little more than animals so to him buying them would be along the lines of buying a dog, not saying it's right just putting it out there but the women who sell them are their mothers, the people who should be their first line of defense against harm. They are the evil ones, they are the ones betraying a sacred biological bond that most wild animals wouldn't break. This is more evil than anything Lex Luthor or even the Joker have ever done as far as I'm concerned and it makes me lose all respect for Wonder Woman's people.

Okay, coming from a die-hard Wonder Woman fan this is what I want. More mythology! Making the Amazons more violent is fine by me. Always thought they could do a sick Wonder Woman comic for Vertigo . I mean let's face the facts: if Wonder Woman really focused on the myth, she'd only have one boob. I also think this is a great idea because he's making the comic more enjoyable for guys again. Yes she's a feminist icon, but it was a guy who created her.

@DarthShap said:

@DIOMJK said:

@DarthShap: Thats not what I meant and you know it. The only way I even see a slavery angle by the end of the book is that they call him master, but historically when you learn a trade you have a master and his apprentice(s). Besides that, I see a man raising a bunch of children who would have otherwise been killed over their "birth defect", as it were, the same way his mother tried to kill him when she threw him off of mount Olympus for being ugly (according to greek mythology). He's raising them out of compassion, and they reciprocated. So what if he had to "buy" them in order to keep their mothers from killing them. Check your civil war history, there existed men who bought slaves in an attempt to rescue them from a far worse fate than if they let them be. If you don't like the story, fine, but don't attempt to make unfounded claims because you're upset over the direction of a story after a reboot.

Slave owners never think they do something wrong. That does not mean they do not own slaves. You do know there are alternatives to owning slaves, like freeing them and employing them.

Just saying.

So saving them from death just to drop them off at an orphanage instead of raising them as children and then employing them? Because who's to say they aren't 'employed?' Who's to say they aren't 'free' if they so choose? Were there any restraints or disciplinary devices? Did any character at any point yet ask 'Are you allowed out of here ever?'

@RockyRaccoon37 said:

@DarthShap said:

I really do not think that it was the point. Because you do no cease to be a slave just because your master treats you right, especially if you do not know any better.

The original point showed that Superman could not win because Apokolips had been completely corrupted by Darkseid, to the point where he was considered to be God by the people.

The point of the rip-off is that not everything is black or white and that there are some shades of grey. But I am not sure it works here because to say in 2012 that sometimes slavery is "grey" is just stupid.

It's not about "the master treating you right"-- It's questioning the notion of freedom, asking what it means to be a slave, and looking critically at the role of the liberator.

You can think of it as a parallel to any of America's recent wars to "free" people enslaved to their totalitarian governments. Or think of freedom as defined in our everyday lives-- aren't we slaves in some way to material things; we're slaves to the economy, a system out of our control, and slaves to our jobs so we can (often barely) earn enough to maintain a level of happiness (usually defined by the spending of monies on material things). But we endure because true freedom is chaotic, unpredictable and new, and most people would sooner have a safe and familiar illusion of freedom.

SPOILER WARNING: Click here to reveal hidden content.

Just as these "slaves" would sooner stay with Hephaestus, because anything else would be entirely unknown. In the same way that he defends his "slaves" our system will protect us so long as we obey it's rules. Why not stay a piece in that system so long as it protects you?

You're thinking of notions of slavery and freedom in very narrow terms, you need to think of it here (but also in general) in a more abstract sense-- what does it mean to free from everything we know?

Not having to stay in one place your entire life is a good start. The possibility to have sex a few times in your lifetime is also nice.

If it were symbolic, it would make sense to some degree because "liberators" rarely free people. However, considering the conditions, it does not work.

@joshmightbe said:

@DarthShap: Hephaestus being a god more than likely views humans as little more than animals so to him buying them would be along the lines of buying a dog, not saying it's right just putting it out there but the women who sell them are their mothers, the people who should be their first line of defense against harm. They are the evil ones, they are the ones betraying a sacred biological bond that most wild animals wouldn't break. This is more evil than anything Lex Luthor or even the Joker have ever done as far as I'm concerned and it makes me lose all respect for Wonder Woman's people.

I agree.

@fables87 said:

Okay, coming from a die-hard Wonder Woman fan this is what I want. More mythology! Making the Amazons more violent is fine by me. Always thought they could do a sick Wonder Woman comic for Vertigo . I mean let's face the facts: if Wonder Woman really focused on the myth, she'd only have one boob. I also think this is a great idea because he's making the comic more enjoyable for guys again. Yes she's a feminist icon, but it was a guy who created her.

A feminist guy.

@The Mighty Monarch said:

Yes, because we know for certain that they never see the light of day or the opposite sex. We absolutely know that for a fact, right? OH WAIT.

Wait..... ripped off... No. This is NOTHING like that Apokalyps story you keep saying he 'Ripped off.' That one had a bleak tone of an entire world that functions on the basis of psychologically shaping someone to worship their 'God.' They had any and all potential for free will removed. THIS is a story that shows Wonder Woman how you can't leap to conclusions without knowing all the facts, because things aren't always as black and white as they seem. Because she had no idea if they are allowed to see the light of day or not, or if they are allowed to be free. OH WAIT, these are all things that YOU DON'T KNOW EITHER AND ARE ALSO JUMPING TO CONCLUSIONS BASED ON ASSUMPTIONS.

Well, that is exactly what I am saying. That it is the exact same scene (Big guy gets beaten, is thrown out to the slaves. Hero screams "you are free". Slaves help the guy up. Guy explains why they did.) but the context is different so it does not work.

@DarthShap: He also invented the polygraph

@joshmightbe said:

@DarthShap: He also invented the polygraph

I know, some say it inspired him for the lasso of truth. :)

@DarthShap said:

@RockyRaccoon37 said:

@DarthShap said:

I really do not think that it was the point. Because you do no cease to be a slave just because your master treats you right, especially if you do not know any better.

The original point showed that Superman could not win because Apokolips had been completely corrupted by Darkseid, to the point where he was considered to be God by the people.

The point of the rip-off is that not everything is black or white and that there are some shades of grey. But I am not sure it works here because to say in 2012 that sometimes slavery is "grey" is just stupid.

It's not about "the master treating you right"-- It's questioning the notion of freedom, asking what it means to be a slave, and looking critically at the role of the liberator.

You can think of it as a parallel to any of America's recent wars to "free" people enslaved to their totalitarian governments. Or think of freedom as defined in our everyday lives-- aren't we slaves in some way to material things; we're slaves to the economy, a system out of our control, and slaves to our jobs so we can (often barely) earn enough to maintain a level of happiness (usually defined by the spending of monies on material things). But we endure because true freedom is chaotic, unpredictable and new, and most people would sooner have a safe and familiar illusion of freedom.

SPOILER WARNING: Click here to reveal hidden content.

Just as these "slaves" would sooner stay with Hephaestus, because anything else would be entirely unknown. In the same way that he defends his "slaves" our system will protect us so long as we obey it's rules. Why not stay a piece in that system so long as it protects you?

You're thinking of notions of slavery and freedom in very narrow terms, you need to think of it here (but also in general) in a more abstract sense-- what does it mean to free from everything we know?

Not having to stay in one place your entire life is a good start. The possibility to have sex a few times in your lifetime is also nice.

If it were symbolic, it would make sense to some degree because "liberators" rarely free people. However, considering the conditions, it does not work.

At no point is it ever mentioned that they can not leave. And again, what determines you or I leaving the country? Technically I could stow away on a boat and just end up somewhere, or I would need money which means I would need a job, which means....

You're still thinking to literally.

@DarthShap said:

@joshmightbe said:

@DarthShap: Hephaestus being a god more than likely views humans as little more than animals so to him buying them would be along the lines of buying a dog, not saying it's right just putting it out there but the women who sell them are their mothers, the people who should be their first line of defense against harm. They are the evil ones, they are the ones betraying a sacred biological bond that most wild animals wouldn't break. This is more evil than anything Lex Luthor or even the Joker have ever done as far as I'm concerned and it makes me lose all respect for Wonder Woman's people.

I agree.

@fables87 said:

Okay, coming from a die-hard Wonder Woman fan this is what I want. More mythology! Making the Amazons more violent is fine by me. Always thought they could do a sick Wonder Woman comic for Vertigo . I mean let's face the facts: if Wonder Woman really focused on the myth, she'd only have one boob. I also think this is a great idea because he's making the comic more enjoyable for guys again. Yes she's a feminist icon, but it was a guy who created her.

A feminist guy.

@The Mighty Monarch said:

Yes, because we know for certain that they never see the light of day or the opposite sex. We absolutely know that for a fact, right? OH WAIT.

Wait..... ripped off... No. This is NOTHING like that Apokalyps story you keep saying he 'Ripped off.' That one had a bleak tone of an entire world that functions on the basis of psychologically shaping someone to worship their 'God.' They had any and all potential for free will removed. THIS is a story that shows Wonder Woman how you can't leap to conclusions without knowing all the facts, because things aren't always as black and white as they seem. Because she had no idea if they are allowed to see the light of day or not, or if they are allowed to be free. OH WAIT, these are all things that YOU DON'T KNOW EITHER AND ARE ALSO JUMPING TO CONCLUSIONS BASED ON ASSUMPTIONS.

Well, that is exactly what I am saying. That it is the exact same scene (Big guy gets beaten, is thrown out to the slaves. Hero screams "you are free". Slaves help the guy up. Guy explains why they did.) but the context is different so it does not work.

The context is DRASTICALLY different. And on Apokalypse.... Superman KNOWS Darkseid is an evil guy, Wonder Woman knows NEXT TO NOTHING about the conditions here with Hephaestus, she goes in, lasso a' blazing, because SHE DOESN'T KNOW. The context doesn't make this a rip off that doesn't work, IT CHANGES EVERYTHING.

I mean, Wonder Woman has always been a rip-off of the original Amazons, oh but they were nice so the different context means it doesn't work, is that right?

What did Azzarello rip off exactly?

@The Mighty Monarch said:

The context is DRASTICALLY different. And on Apokalypse.... Superman KNOWS Darkseid is an evil guy, Wonder Woman knows NEXT TO NOTHING about the conditions here with Hephaestus, she goes in, lasso a' blazing, because SHE DOESN'T KNOW. The context doesn't make this a rip off that doesn't work, IT CHANGES EVERYTHING.

I mean, Wonder Woman has always been a rip-off of the original Amazons, oh but they were nice so the different context means it doesn't work, is that right?

So you are saying that the two scenes just look similar by coincidence? OK, that is your opinion but I disagree.

I'm shocked at the amount of people referring to the Amazons selling their children as a moral grey area. It's not grey, it's evil pure and simple. Any woman who would do that do her own child is unfit to exist let alone be looked up to

@DarthShap said:

@The Mighty Monarch said:

The context is DRASTICALLY different. And on Apokalypse.... Superman KNOWS Darkseid is an evil guy, Wonder Woman knows NEXT TO NOTHING about the conditions here with Hephaestus, she goes in, lasso a' blazing, because SHE DOESN'T KNOW. The context doesn't make this a rip off that doesn't work, IT CHANGES EVERYTHING.

I mean, Wonder Woman has always been a rip-off of the original Amazons, oh but they were nice so the different context means it doesn't work, is that right?

So you are saying that the two scenes just look similar by coincidence? OK, that is your opinion but I disagree.

You seem to have this AMAZING ability to completely miss the main points of people's arguments and argue more often than not the less important details instead of trying to counter the stronger arguments.

@The Mighty Monarch said:

@DarthShap said:

@The Mighty Monarch said:

The context is DRASTICALLY different. And on Apokalypse.... Superman KNOWS Darkseid is an evil guy, Wonder Woman knows NEXT TO NOTHING about the conditions here with Hephaestus, she goes in, lasso a' blazing, because SHE DOESN'T KNOW. The context doesn't make this a rip off that doesn't work, IT CHANGES EVERYTHING.

I mean, Wonder Woman has always been a rip-off of the original Amazons, oh but they were nice so the different context means it doesn't work, is that right?

So you are saying that the two scenes just look similar by coincidence? OK, that is your opinion but I disagree.

You seem to have this AMAZING ability to completely miss the main points of people's arguments and argue more often than not the less important details instead of trying to counter the stronger arguments.

That's what law school does to you.

i know Hera already dealt with the amazons and after reading issue 7 they sort of had it coming.

but shouldnt superman or batman or some hero have wondered why ships crews kept disappearing and looked into it?and why does the brothers have to work the forge 24/7 hasnt hephestus ever heard of holidays

They are two way to dehumanize people : dismissing them, and idolizing them. Giving flaw to amazonian culture is only giving true equality between men and women. Beside of that, there's nothing more boring than a "flawless" society. Didn't read this issue, because my access to comics is uneasy these times, but this can be a good idea.

@DarthShap said:

@The Mighty Monarch said:

@DarthShap said:

@The Mighty Monarch said:

The context is DRASTICALLY different. And on Apokalypse.... Superman KNOWS Darkseid is an evil guy, Wonder Woman knows NEXT TO NOTHING about the conditions here with Hephaestus, she goes in, lasso a' blazing, because SHE DOESN'T KNOW. The context doesn't make this a rip off that doesn't work, IT CHANGES EVERYTHING.

I mean, Wonder Woman has always been a rip-off of the original Amazons, oh but they were nice so the different context means it doesn't work, is that right?

So you are saying that the two scenes just look similar by coincidence? OK, that is your opinion but I disagree.

You seem to have this AMAZING ability to completely miss the main points of people's arguments and argue more often than not the less important details instead of trying to counter the stronger arguments.

That's what law school does to you.

Law school teaches you how to argue ineptly and infuriate people who think you're completely missing the point because you never address the strong counter arguments?

Actually that doesn't surprise me.

@DrewHLMW: Because who says they all work the forge constantly? Who says they don't get vacation time or reasonable hours or anything like that?

I find it funny that everyone looks on countries where people abandoned baby girls with moral outrage but see the concept of abandoning baby boys as a moral grey area

@The Mighty Monarch said:

Law school teaches you how to argue ineptly and infuriate people who think you're completely missing the point because you never address the strong counter arguments?

Actually that doesn't surprise me.

No, just that if an argument has huge flaws, and yours has, they should be addressed, especially for a counter argument.

@DarthShap said:

@The Mighty Monarch said:

Law school teaches you how to argue ineptly and infuriate people who think you're completely missing the point because you never address the strong counter arguments?

Actually that doesn't surprise me.

No, just that if an argument has huge flaws, and yours has, they should be addressed, especially for a counter argument.

Mmmm, because your arguments are completely flawless?

You've chipped away a few loosely hung decorations, but have barely even attempted to tackle the foundation.

honestly think about how well every Wonder Woman series sold before this...not very well at all...it was the least selling book out of DC's big three...they needed to make some big changes to the mythos or do the same thing over again expecting different results

@The Mighty Monarch said:

@DarthShap said:

@The Mighty Monarch said:

Law school teaches you how to argue ineptly and infuriate people who think you're completely missing the point because you never address the strong counter arguments?

Actually that doesn't surprise me.

No, just that if an argument has huge flaws, and yours has, they should be addressed, especially for a counter argument.

Mmmm, because your arguments are completely flawless?

You've chipped away a few loosely hung decorations, but have barely even attempted to tackle the foundation.

Did I say my arguments were flawless? I am not the one who "made it personal" right there, you were. I am not the one who is infuriated, you are. And it is really not my problem.

Anyway... amazons.

@DarthShap said:

@The Mighty Monarch said:

@DarthShap said:

@The Mighty Monarch said:

Law school teaches you how to argue ineptly and infuriate people who think you're completely missing the point because you never address the strong counter arguments?

Actually that doesn't surprise me.

No, just that if an argument has huge flaws, and yours has, they should be addressed, especially for a counter argument.

Mmmm, because your arguments are completely flawless?

You've chipped away a few loosely hung decorations, but have barely even attempted to tackle the foundation.

Did I say my arguments were flawless? I am not the one who "made it personal" right there, you were. I am not the one who is infuriated, you are. And it is really not my problem.

Because you keep saying the same thing. No matter how many times ANYONE seems to point out how little we know about the working conditions at Hephaestus' forge, YOU KEEP COUNTER ARGUING WITH ASSUMPTIONS THAT YOU TREAT AS FACT.

@joshmightbe said:

I find it funny that everyone looks on countries where people abandoned baby girls with moral outrage but see the concept of abandoning baby boys as a moral grey area

What are you talking about? No one thinks that.

@RockyRaccoon37: All kinds of people on this thread have been talking about this being a grey area and saying crap like we shouldn't judge this behavior by our standards on this thread.

@The Mighty Monarch said:

Because you keep saying the same thing. No matter how many times ANYONE seems to point out how little we know about the working conditions at Hephaestus' forge, YOU KEEP COUNTER ARGUING WITH ASSUMPTIONS THAT YOU TREAT AS FACT.

I do not know what to say. I do not need to see the level of pay, the numbers of hours worked and the number of holidays to differentiate slavery from employment.

When a group of males only are traded against weapons, call their owner "master ", are submissive, all wear the same clothes, and appear to live in what looks a lot like a prison with bars on the windows of their doors, it does seem not completely crazy to call it "slavery".