i dont really think the amazons were ever saying women are perfect and men are not. its a bit more complicated than that in fact there were plenty of matriarchies in wonder womans history that were absolutely ruthless and were the example of how not to make a society so she's never been about women automatically being perfect(hell most of her rogues are women and very evil ones). also, i dont see how an advanced society isnt fun i dont think slavery and murder and the like are even appealing let alone what would make the amazons appealing. the amazons are meant to be the best humanity can be or at least one example of it.

@westfriesianman: well im talking about the wonder woman since golden age or at least that version of her. No its a reference to a book i read as a kid called "Bud not Buddy"

@westfriesianman: I think I get ya, I did kinda chuckle just reading it

I feel like they did that solely to play up Gal's acting strengths based on what everyone has seen from her. This was just to hype her up. Now her solo is where we'll Gal's true role as Diana.

xoxo, -Saint Sophie

I think WW's lower power levels works for her movie from what I've seen in the trailer. If they want to increase them in modern times (it looks like they did in BvS) that's fine but I think it works better battling Nazi's at a lower level to make it more interesting

I think you're misunderstanding what I wrote.

I think the New 52's Wonder Woman was a bit of a Mary Sue. Even compared to Superman.

1 Wonder Woman should be bisexual. She didnt come to mans world a thousands of years old a virgin did she?

2 She should be superior to Superman and be the face and tactical leader of the Justice League.Based on powerset and resources WW>>>Superman logically.WW>>>Batman tactically and combat wise(stats equal)logically. The only thing that stops this is CIS WIS or PIS.

Some of these probably aren't unpopular opinions but i'm posting them anyways:

- I think Gal Gadot was a miscast for the WW role.

- WW with Batman or Superman is a terrible ship...burn it with fire.

- Marston's and HG Peter's WW run will forever be the best in WW comic history. Don't @ me on this.

- Diana and Orion should've been the main couple in the New 52.

- Chris Pine's portrayal of Steve Trevor is one of the best portrayals of the character, along with Marston's.

- I don't like the idea of WW being bisexual or queer tbh. To me, the Amazons were always just a concept of female strength/power in WW mythos.

- Donna Troy is an uninteresting character and just the typical younger version of the main hero.

- Clay sculpted origin is still the best origin for Diana.

- Marston's Steve Trevor >>>

- Gateway City and Dooms Doorway should return to the main WW title and should be a staple to her mythos

Wonder Woman is a terrible character who gets a pity-pass because she is a female character.

this, accept the last I would say less about her scientific mind and more about wisdom, culture and breadth of knowledge,

1. I hate they don´t keep her job consistently as Ambassador.

2. I can´t stand the Diana Prince disguise. It makes no sense to the character and should be dropped.

3. I can´t stand they don´t make Gateway City her home.

4. I can´t stand dooms doorway isn´t constantly hidden beneath Themyscira.

5. I can´t stand they won´t explore the bi-sexuality of Wonder Woman and The Amazons.

I also agree with this.

-I like the Zeus origin

-I loved the JL War design

-I like Ares as the mentor and I feel a fusion of both Ares could be done where he has the Brother/Sister bond with her.

-I like the SM/WW relationship

Pretty sure I've posted those opinions already, but whateves

I'm surprised this thread was bumped considering it's original reception. I'm glad it was and hopefully it will be used as I intended this time.

1. I wouldn't say hate but ya that was part of the point of her leaving the island. TO be an ambassador.
2. I mostly agree. There is no point or need.
3. That one actually doesn't bother me. I have no special feeling towards Gateway city and with her job as ambassador DC or near the UN makes more sense to me.
4. I could take it or leave it.
5. I see no reason why they should. I don't mind the other Amazons but I never saw her that way and I don't buy the reasons given that she is. Sorry but growing up in a single gendered society isn't enough to guarantee someone being into that gender.

I liked it at first but have since come around and dislike it. Truthfully I might have only I liked it was because it wasn't the clay thing and the reason others didn't like it were bad in my opinion.

I think they should make Gateway City the political capital of DC. I think it should be based off Washington DC and New York. That way it would also make sense that Argus is run out of there. The same way FBI and CIA headquarters are in Quantico Virginia.

Amazons should be technologically advanced like in her Golden Age comics instead of living like Barbarians

Diane should have a second life and profession , like Doctor or female martial artist or, philanthropists like Bill Gates using treasures and gold from Themyscira to fund charities around the world.

Amazons and Themyscira should be portrayed in complex grey manner instead of Utopia or negatively like new 52 where they were rapist.

Diane should stop carrying sword and Shield. She was created to be female Superman not female Captain America or Conan the Barbarian

She could be the daughter any god or goddess but not Zeus. It just make Wonder Woman so generic. Making her Daughter of Ares and Aphrodite will give Diana the choice to Became God of War or Love.

There should be stories that focus Diana's intelligence like she inventing Purple ray (Healing device) or solving puzzles and mysteries

@geraldofvengerberg: It's Diana not Diane.

LMFAO. OP was bashed so much by ww fans for creating this thread that isn't even funny.

@truethemyscira: sorry

I do not have any.

EDIT: as of right now.

While I believe the N52 Wonder woman was too aggressive, I believe that she should be more willing to enter combat and kill if necessary. I don't think she should enjoy killing but fighting should be natural to her and feel like a "release". She should also be excited to fight powerful opponents.

She shouldn't be as powerful as Supes but able to beat him with medium difficulty due to skill difference.

I've probably said this before, but I'll say it again: the sword-shield combo is stupid.

The shield makes the bracelets redundant. What's the point of having twin bracelets (that you can use to block bullets for an iconic Wonder Woman visual), when you have a giant shield that you can just lug around? Same thing with the sword: it makes the Lasso redundant. The lasso is a unique weapon that makes her larger-than-life, aka a superheroine. A sword just reduces her to another generic Xena woman-warrior-type character. Plus, an ambassador of peace should not be walking around with a sword used for carving people. I need DC to remove these boring gladiator weapons, and just let her punch people, and toss cars with her lasso, and block bullets with her bracelets.

@veshark said:I've probably said this before, but I'll say it again: the sword-shield combo is stupid.

The shield makes the bracelets redundant. What's the point of having twin bracelets (that you can use to block bullets for an iconic Wonder Woman visual), when you have a giant shield that you can just lug around? Same thing with the sword: it makes the Lasso redundant. The lasso is a unique weapon that makes her larger-than-life, aka a superheroine. A sword just reduces her to another generic Xena woman-warrior-type character. Plus, an ambassador of peace should not be walking around with a sword used for carving people. I need DC to remove these boring gladiator weapons, and just let her punch people, and toss cars with her lasso, and block bullets with her bracelets.

I don't this is an unpopular opinion but valid criticism.

@saintwildcard said:

-I like the Zeus origin

-I loved the JL War design

-I like Ares as the mentor and I feel a fusion of both Ares could be done where he has the Brother/Sister bond with her.

-I like the SM/WW relationship

All of this besides the "brother/sister bond" part.

I love classic/current Diana that's half loving, diplomat for peace and half highly trained, savage warrior that's willing to do what needs to be done. Personally, I like the warrior half more and liked the New 52 runs.

yeah I don't think this qualifies as an "unpopular opinion" seeing how the vast majority Wonder Woman fans agree with it

A smart fighter doesn't put their faith in just one weapon. The shield is useful in case the bracelets fail and requires less effort to use while also providing more protection.

Saying the sword makes the lasso redundant is like saying Batman's grappling hook makes the batarangs redundant. The lasso and the sword have two completely different functions.

And who says that superheroes don't use swords? Someone better tell Katana and Gamora that.

Do Wonder Woman fans think Xena is the only character who uses a sword?

An ambassador of peace shouldn't be fighting either.

@agent_z:

False equivalency. Batman’s entire character is built on the basis that he’s a man prepared for anything, hence all the gadgets. When you’re only human, you need a belt full of Swiss Army tools to hang with the JLA. Wonder Woman has proven in thousands of issues that she does perfectly fine with bracelets, a lasso, and y’know herald-level strength and speed. All it takes is good writing, as the millions of Wonder Woman stories before the New 52 prove.

Katana kills people on a regular basis with a sword that literally traps the souls of its victims. Gamora was a literal assassin. Either of those characters sound anything like what Diana represents? Not to mention your citing of other characters who use swords only enforces my argument that using the sword over the lasso makes Wonder Woman less unique.

Xena is the standing pop culture archetype for the “fantasy warrior heroine” (it’s literally in her name...Warrior Princess and all that). I’m a little lost why you don’t see the parallel there but alright.

We can debate all day about the semantics of “peace” but point being, a hero who supposedly represents a better path should not be stabbing her foes in my opinion. The bloodthirsty attitude that Diana has expressed since she started using a sword never sat right with me.

There have been numerous times when Diana's regular abilities proved inadequate against an enemy. The quality of writing has nothing to do with what weapons or powers she is using. The presence of the sword and shield have nothing to do with it. Fighting smart is not a trait exclusive to Batman.

Key word being "was". Gamora isn't an assassin anymore and my point is that being a superhero and having a sword are not mutually exclusive as you were claiming.

Wonder Woman was killing people before she got a sword in the New 52.

Having a sword is the most shallow parallel to Xena. It's about the only thing they have in common and is barely noticable. No one noticed any similarities to Xena in the Wonder Woman movie. Because they were barely any.

I don't care for the bloodthirsty attitude either. Blame Mark Waid and Grant Morrison for that one.

@agent_z

Um, the writing determines everything about the "weapons" or "superpowers" of a character. The writer creates a story and gives the protagonist the traits needed to solve the story's problems. Or, to simplify it: there've been millions of issues where all Wonder Woman had was a lasso and bracelets, and she's still y'know, not dead.

"Fighting smart" is also a huge oversimplification of my explanation for Batman. You're comparing a man with no superpowers who survives on preparation and utility to one of the most powerful superhumans in the DCU. Not to mention Diana already has a lasso and bracelets. Adding a sword and shield just makes these iconic elements of her character seem redundant, as I said in my first post.

Gamora still kills opponents on a daily basis. You can't equate that with pre-sword Wonder Woman who only kills when it's necessary e.g. Maxwell Lord. And I never said superheroes can't have swords--don't twist my words. I said using a lasso made Diana seem larger-than-life (i.e. a goddess, or a superheroine) compared to a sword, which seemed generic and derivative of the fantasy heroine archetype.

The sword's the only parallel? You're just gonna ignore the whole "warrior princess" thing, and the fact that Xena's also based on Greek myth then? Look, no one's saying that giving Diana a sword makes her an instant carbon copy of Xena. But it does bring her one step closer to that fictional archetype. That's why people often draw a comparison between the two.

Or...Brian Azzarello and Geoff Johns, but alright.

@veshark: She's died twice prior to the New 52.

Diana is superhuman. She is also not Superman. She doesn't have the exact same power set or approach to fighting as him. Again, there is no rule that says you can't use weapons just because you are superhuman. Nor is there a rule as to the number of weapons you can use. And again, the sword does not make the lasso redundant because they have two completely different functions. A sword is used to maim and kill, a lasso is used to capture and restrain.

Gamora has never killed when she didn't have to after turning good. Same with Katana.

Since when are fantasy heroes not larger than life? That's what the word fantasy literally means. Thor is a fantasy hero. Are you going to say he isn't larger than life?

You've literally said that Diana is exactly like Xena just because they both use a sword.

I have my issues with Brian Azzarello, but he didn't write her as overly violent and bloodthirsty (he saved that for the Amazons). Johns did but he wasn't the first to do that.

@agent_z

Two instances compared to countless other times when had a lasso and bracelets and...didn't die. Sword and a shield aren't gonna save her from Neron or Circe, either.

No one's saying there's any cardinal set-in-stone rules for weapons, my argument really just comes down to Diana's uniqueness as a character and my personal preference. Also you've said that you don't like a bloodthirsty Wonder Woman, and yet you're arguing for her to carry a sword, which--in your own words--is a weapon "used to maim and kill." So...huh?

Untrue about Gamora, she literally chops bad guys up in every appearance. Same thing with Katana; I literally just read an issue from Lemire's Green Arrow run of her cutting up generic henchmen. Neither character shares Diana's restraint. Also, again...not the issue. I never said all superheroes can't carry swords.

Stop drawing these illogical comparisons. This Thor one might be your worst one yet. The typical fantasy (as in the genre, not the word) heroine usually carries a sword and a shield. Giving these elements to Wonder Woman make her seem like any generic swords-and-sorcery type character, as opposed to a superheroine.

I also brought up all those other similarities, but I guess we'll just steamroll over those and ignore 'em. Diana and Xena already have these parallels, all I'm saying is that a sword brings Diana that much closer to Xena and blurs the line even more.

Absolutely true.

@veshark: Two instances compared to countless other times when had a lasso and bracelets and...didn't die. Sword and a shield aren't gonna save her from Neron or Circe, either.

She died twice without the sword and shield and hasn't died once with it. Do the math. The lasso didn't do much good against Neron and it didn't stop Circe from killing her. Superheroes are constantly having their abilities and arsenal upgraded. Diana is just following in that tradition.

No one's saying there's any cardinal set-in-stone rules for weapons, my argument really just comes down to Diana's uniqueness as a character and my personal preference. Also you've said that you don't like a bloodthirsty Wonder Woman, and yet you're arguing for her to carry a sword, which--in your own words--is a weapon "used to maim and kill." So...huh?

Using a sword does not automatically make a character bloodthirsty. There are plenty of characters who use swords that aren't bloodthirsty in the slightest. The sword isn't what makes Diana bloodthirsty, it's writers viewing her that way.

Untrue about Gamora, she literally chops bad guys up in every appearance. Same thing with Katana; I literally just read an issue from Lemire's Green Arrow run of her cutting up generic henchmen. Neither character shares Diana's restraint. Also, again...not the issue. I never said all superheroes can't carry swords.

Pretty sure killing henchmen that are trying to kill you falls under self-defense. The MCU heroes do this in every film with nary a peep from the fans.

Stop drawing these illogical comparisons. This Thor one might be your worst one yet. The typical fantasy (as in the genre, not the word) heroine usually carries a sword and a shield. Giving these elements to Wonder Woman make her seem like any generic swords-and-sorcery type character, as opposed to a superheroine.

Your inability to grasp that a) fantasy and superheroes are not mutually exclusive and b) that fantasy heroes are also larger-than-life is truly mind-boggling.

I also brought up all those other similarities, but I guess we'll just steamroll over those and ignore 'em. Diana and Xena already have these parallels, all I'm saying is that a sword brings Diana that much closer to Xena and blurs the line even more.

Diana and Xena have different personalities, philosophies, histories, origins, supporting casts, story arcs, abilities, powers, arsenals, outfits etc. But sure, let's act like one or two other traits in common suddenly makes it impossible for people to tell them apart.

@agent_z: Agreed

@agent_z:

And how many issues has she appeared in with the sword-shield compared to without? Do the math.

The sword-shield combo isn’t a testament to her equipment upgrade because she hasn’t died yet, it’s just a comparison between 8 years of comics with the sword-shield to 7 decades of comics with the lasso-bracelets. Dumb argument.

The sword isn’t singlehandedly making Diana bloodthirsty, but it definitely encourages the notion that she’s someone who doesn’t view lethal force as a last resort. Also you claim that heroes who use swords don’t necessarily kill, and yet I’ve already debunked your two examples of Katana and Gamora so........

And what, you think Wonder Woman should kill every henchman who attacks her in self-defense, too? Also, your latest false equivalency: most of the MCU’s heroes have never had a no-kill rule for most of their modern publication history. It’s an issue of character.

Your inability to not make terrible false equivalencies is mind-boggling too, but alright.

I really don’t see why I’m still explaining the Xena comparison to you after like, five posts, but here goes. No one’s saying that giving a sword and shield to Diana makes her instantly unrecognizable from Xena. But that adding another similarity (when the two already share a lot of similarities), takes away from the distinctness of Wonder Woman.

Really, it’s not rocket-science and I’m hardly the first reader to draw the comparison, so I don’t see why you’re so vehemetly arguing the point.

@veshark: And how many issues has she appeared in with the sword-shield compared to without? Do the math.

I don't care how many issues she's appeared in without them. A concept's longevity is not a mark of its quality.

The sword-shield combo isn’t a testament to her equipment upgrade because she hasn’t died yet, it’s just a comparison between 8 years of comics with the sword-shield to 7 decades of comics with the lasso-bracelets. Dumb argument.

When the sword and shield fail to save her from getting killed, you can make this argument.

The sword isn’t singlehandedly making Diana bloodthirsty, but it definitely encourages the notion that she’s someone who doesn’t view lethal force as a last resort.

No, that's coming from the writers actually depicting her as bloodthirsty. Azzarello gave her two swords and didn't write her that way. Rucka had her using an axe and a sword and didn't have her acting that way. Bruce Timm's version was far more foul-tempered and violent than these versions and didn't use a sword.

The issue isn't Diana having a sword. It's that DC mostly has a childish and vilified view of lethal force.

Also you claim that heroes who use swords don’t necessarily kill

I said no such thing. What I said was they aren't bloodthirsty.

And what, you think Wonder Woman should kill every henchman who attacks her in self-defense, too?

If no other means can be used to stop them, yes. I though you were okay with Diana using lethal force as a last resort.

Also, your latest false equivalency: most of the MCU’s heroes have never had a no-kill rule for most of their modern publication history.

Neither has Diana, which makes you whining about her using a sword all the more baffling.

Your inability to not make terrible false equivalencies is mind-boggling too, but alright.

Your using the word "false equivalency" wrong.

I really don’t see why I’m still explaining the Xena comparison to you after like, five posts, but here goes. No one’s saying that giving a sword and shield to Diana makes her instantly unrecognizable from Xena. But that adding another similarity (when the two already share a lot of similarities), takes away from the uniqueness of Wonder Woman.

It would only take away from the uniqueness if Diana's other traits were ignored. They aren't.

@agent_z:

A concept’s longevity is often an indicator of its quality, but whatever. Also, not the point of my argument.

You’re saying the sword and shield are proven to be a weapons upgrade on the basis that Diana hasn’t been killed since she started using them. I’m saying that you can’t compare sword-shield Diana who has only been around for a few years, to regular Diana has been around for decades. Until sword-shield Diana has been around for 70+ years, you really can’t make that argument.

You literally defined the sword as a weapon used to “maim and kill.” I have no idea why you’re doing all this backpedaling now. Obviously it’s not impossible to write a sword-wielding hero who exercises restraint, but look at DC’s recent direction of a more violent Diana, and tell me that’s not directy tied into the character’s increasing reliance on a weapon designed to “maim and kill?” Also, last I checked DCAU Wonder Woman never snapped anyone’s neck, so....huh?

Don’t play the semantics game with me, buddy. You knew what you meant when you said “bloodthirsty.” Also, what’s it matter, your examples of Gamora and Katana are still inaccurate.

I’m fine with Diana using lethal force as a last resort. The way Katana and Gamora chop up fodder is not a means of last resort. Wonder Woman should not be killing henchmen because quite frankly, she doesn’t need to. Between godlike strength and speed, and a magic lasso and indestructible bracelets....what does she really need a sword for?

Captain America (for instance) kills henchmen frequently. He’s only mortal, he’s not that powerful, and the no-kill rule is generally treated a lot more loosely by the Marvel U’s hero community. You’re really gonna compare that to Post-Crisis Diana who only kills in the most extreme circumstances? Ok then.

It’s not a word, it’s a phrase. I don’t think you know what false equivalency even means based on this exchange, but sure. Can’t discredit my terminology if you can’t even disprove my points.

I'm just going to say that I'm fine with her having and using other weapons like her swords, shield, and spear BUT only in the most extreme circumstances as in "the last resort" like when she fought Medusa or Ares or Circe or a horde of endless mindless demons in Valhalla. She should not be using it against her allies when their mind controlled or against opponents like humans or sentient creatures she can first attempt to talk to.

Though honestly right now I'd like DC to focus on her newest magical abilities from Hecate or using Zeus's lightning more often like she did in Simone's run.

@veshark: A concept’s longevity is often an indicator of its quality, but whatever. Also, not the point of my argument.

You're the one who brought it up.

You literally defined the sword as a weapon used to “maim and kill.” I have no idea why you’re doing all this backpedaling now.

I am not backpedaling on anything. You are the one who does not seem to comprehend that just because a sword is a lethal weapon it does not make the person who wields it bloodthirsty.

Obviously it’s not impossible to write a sword-wielding hero who exercises restraint, but look at DC’s recent direction of a more violent Diana, and tell me that’s not directy tied into the character’s increasing reliance on a weapon designed to “maim and kill?”

Not all that obvious to you since you keep ignoring instances of a sword-wielding Diana who isn't bloodthirsty because it doesn't support your argument.

Also, last I checked DCAU Wonder Woman never snapped anyone’s neck, so....huh?

She threatened to cave in Toyman's head and was only stopped by the Flash, was shown several times to be the first to pick a fight, and nearly killed a bunch of simple bank robbers just because she was in a bad mood.

Don’t play the semantics game with me, buddy. You knew what you meant when you said “bloodthirsty.”

Yeah I did. Not sure if you did though.

Captain America (for instance) kills henchmen frequently. He’s only mortal, he’s not that powerful, and the no-kill rule is generally treated a lot more loosely by the Marvel U’s hero community. You’re really gonna compare that to Post-Crisis Diana who only kills in the most extreme circumstances? Ok then.

So when Captain America kills henchmen, it's okay because he's mortal but when Katana and Gamora who are also mortal (the latter of whom is also a Marvel hero) do it, they're bloodthirsty? Also, not everyone in the DCU follows the no killing rule. In fact, you'll find that outside of Superman and Batman, many do not.

Also, what’s it matter, your examples of Gamora and Katana are still inaccurate.

Care to explain how?

I’m fine with Diana using lethal force as a last resort. The way Katana and Gamora chop up fodder is not a means of last resort.

Do they have other means of subduing them? If not, then it's a last resort.

Wonder Woman should not be killing henchmen because quite frankly, she doesn’t need to. Between godlike strength and speed, and a magic lasso and indestructible bracelets....what does she really need a sword for?

For the same reason anyone uses more than one weapon: more options. I've already explained this but you've made it clear you don't like the sword and will jump through any mental hoops to show it as a bad thing. You'll dismiss any arguments in favor of it because of obvious bias.

The bracelets offer no offensive options, she's been bested or equaled in strength several times and the Lasso's been been broken or escaped from before. These are reasons enough to use a sword.

@agent_z:

Not really. You were the first to mention how there were “plenty of times” that Diana’s arsenal proved inadequate. And that she hasn’t died since she started using a sword. I simply pointed out that it’s a poor argument to make, given it doesn’t really...make sense on any level. I’m guessing you don’t have a counterargument there given you’ve elected to ignore an entire chunk of my post, but ok.

No, I comprehend it fine. I just find it funny how you’re willfully ignoring the conscious correlation between a more violent characterization of Diana and her using a sword.

On DCAU Wonder Woman: you’re gonna use Toyman as an example? What’s a more extreme circumstance than witnessing the death of Superman a few seconds ago? Also, what’s the point you’re trying to make here? As “foul-tempered” as DCAU Diana might’ve been, she still never actually killed anyone.

On Gamora and Katana: read my earlier posts. I’m not retreading the same argument unless you actually have a point to make.

Sigh. It’s a question of character. Cap, Katana, and Gamora have (in their modern portrayals) used lethal force against all opponents and are generally less hesitant to kill. Wonder Woman (in her Pre-52 portrayal) generally avoids killing unless absolutely necessary. That’s partly because of the scale of her powers which makes it unnecessary, bur it’s also a big part of her character.

I never said that every superhero in the DCU doesn’t kill. I said the no-kill rule is treated more loosely in the Marvel U’s hero community. In the DCU’s hero community, when a hero kills, it’s treated as a bigger deal. Just look at the fallout after Maxwell Lord, or read any issue of JSA.

Really? One’s the deadliest woman in the galaxy, the other’s the leader of the Sword Clan, and you’re trying to argue that neither one could possibly have nonlethal methods of subduing featless fodder? Okay then.

Nope, not really. Those are poor reasons. My issue with the sword/shield has to do with Diana’s character as well as design redundancy in regards to her equipment. Your argument rests on your repeated insistence that Diana’s current arsenal is inadequate...despite the fact that all it really comes down to is the writers. Five years from now, if DC puts out a story where Diana dies while using a sword and shield, are you gonna argue that Wonder Woman needs to “upgrade her arsenal” with a machine-gun and lightsaber?

I don't think there is anything inherently wrong with Diana wielding a sword and shield. However I do agree that they should only be used against powerful opponents.

They provide Diana with more offensive and defensive options. You can't deny the benefits of an atom splitting sword and near Indestructible shield.

It also empathises the fact that she is a master of several forms of weaponry.

I think however they should give her a stronger connection to the magical side of DC. They could build off the powers in the current invent to give her some cool permanent upgrades.

I also liked the bolt of Zeus thing she had at the start of rebirth. Not sure what happened to it but I'd like for Diana to have a long range offensive option (but she should specialise in CQC).

A complaint I've read is that it led to DC nerfing her but I don't think DC is going to improve her stats simply because she doesn't have weaponry. I do agree that she shouldn't rely on them often and she should be given the opportunity to show off her stats and h2h skills.

@agent_z: @veshark: @kevinffinity: The sword should be her nuke option, something that she only uses as a last resort. It should only be used as very powerful villains like Cheetah, Ares and not against not so serious threats like German soldiers, Doomsday.

Otherwise, DC will keep on nerfing the sword as we saw in the movie Wonder Woman and Death of Superman.

A sword that can cut anything including an atom is not something Dina should carry around into every battle.

The shield has to go. She already has bracelets and has super speed so no excuse for trying to become Ms Captain America