Ghidoran

Completely boring and uninteresting assassin.

@outside_85:

Ok, forget Superman. Imagine it was Martian Manhunter in his place. He's another hero that doesn't get to save the world. Would you have complained if Diana had stepped in to protect his honor, 'emasculating' him?

@outside_85:

So if WW had defender Superman instead, would you have complained because Superman was being emasculated?

I'm going with Faora on this one, for several reasons.

1. Thor in the movies hasn't shown nearly the level of combat speed that Faora has shown. Despite being hardly used to Earth conditions, Faora still managed to move incredibly fast, taking down not only regular humans in less than a second, but even matching Superman's speed.

2. Despite Thor supposedly being this great warrior, he has yet to show as much as skill in 3 movies as Faora has in just a few minutes of one. Thor's fighting style involves charging at opponents and trying to beat them with his hammer; he doesn't show much finesse and given his speed disadvantage I doubt he would be able to match Faora hand to hand.

3. As far as strength goes, I'm not sure who's stronger. Thor has some impressive feats while Faora does not, however, she rarely got a chance to show such feats. Assuming she's on the same level as Kal and Zod (and there's no reason she shouldn't be at least Zod's level), then we can assume that she's equally capable of toppling skyscrapers.

4. Durability is a tough one. Thor has been shown to take some hits but on the other hand Loki believed he would die from a several thousand foot drop in Avengers, so it's not entirely clear how tough he really is. Faora's durability limits are, thus far, untested, but given both Zod and Superman survived quite a pounding and several massive falls, it's fair to imagine Faora would be capable of the same. The only weakness she showed was to a sensory overload, so Thor could possibly use that to his advantage.

5. The x-factor is Thor's hammer and his magic in general. We don't know the rules of kryptonian weaknesses or what constitutes as magic in either universe. If Thor's hammer does count as magic then he could potentially do a great deal of damage to Faora...on the other hand, he hasn't yet shown that he can throw it particularly fast, so the trouble he'll have is hitting Faora in the first place. Similar, hitting her lightning would be rather difficult given her incredible speed. I would say, with a bit of luck, this is the only chance Thor has of winning, but it's a slim chance.

So, Faora has greater speed and, apparently, greater skill in combat, equal in strength to Thor, while being slightly less durable due to her lack of acclimatization to Earth and potentially being weak to Thor's hammer/magic. Most people however agree that speed is the biggest determining factor in battles, and so I would give the edge to Faora.

I'm going with Faora on this one, for several reasons.

1. Thor in the movies hasn't shown nearly the level of combat speed that Faora has shown. Despite being hardly used to Earth conditions, Faora still managed to move incredibly fast, taking down not only regular humans in less than a second, but even matching Superman's speed.

2. Despite Thor supposedly being this great warrior, he has yet to show as much as skill in 3 movies as Faora has in just a few minutes of one. Thor's fighting style involves charging at opponents and trying to beat them with his hammer; he doesn't show much finesse and given his speed disadvantage I doubt he would be able to match Faora hand to hand.

3. As far as strength goes, I'm not sure who's stronger. Thor has some impressive feats while Faora does not, however, she rarely got a chance to show such feats. Assuming she's on the same level as Kal and Zod (and there's no reason she shouldn't be at least Zod's level), then we can assume that she's equally capable of toppling skyscrapers.

4. Durability is a tough one. Thor has been shown to take some hits but on the other hand Loki believed he would die from a several thousand foot drop in Avengers, so it's not entirely clear how tough he really is. Faora's durability limits are, thus far, untested, but given both Zod and Superman survived quite a pounding and several massive falls, it's fair to imagine Faora would be capable of the same. The only weakness she showed was to a sensory overload, so Thor could possibly use that to his advantage.

5. The x-factor is Thor's hammer and his magic in general. We don't know the rules of kryptonian weaknesses or what constitutes as magic in either universe. If Thor's hammer does count as magic then he could potentially do a great deal of damage to Faora...on the other hand, he hasn't yet shown that he can throw it particularly fast, so the trouble he'll have is hitting Faora in the first place. Similar, hitting her lightning would be rather difficult given her incredible speed. I would say, with a bit of luck, this is the only chance Thor has of winning, but it's a slim chance.

So, Faora has greater speed and, apparently, greater skill in combat, equal in strength to Thor, while being slightly less durable due to her lack of acclimatization to Earth and potentially being weak to Thor's hammer/magic. Most people however agree that speed is the biggest determining factor in battles, and so I would give the edge to Faora.

Let's not get too ahead of ourselves, we don't know if these guys are the assassins. Seems a little odd that the League of Assassins wouldn't be one of them. These might just be auxiliary villains like Joker and Penguin.

@celineness: Oh get over yourself, just because you don't like something that's changed doesn't mean it's false and is going to be reverted back. Diana's clay origin is an extremely strange and unnecessary story detail that was done at a time when WW symbolized female empowerment. Considering Diana hasn't had that role for over a decade now there is no sense in keeping the ridiculous 'born from clay' origin. Her new origin makes far more sense and has led to far more interesting stories than being a clay doll ever would.

Complaining about her lack of ability to keep the baby safe? Really? Yes, let's make it so she solves every problem in a matter of seconds. THAT'LL be an interesting story, right guys?

@sinisteri: This is just blatantly biased and one-sided, and at times flat out lies. I'm guessing you haven't actually been reading the New 52 Wonder Woman, and instead basing your entire summary on Johns' depiction of the character and what you've heard based on all the whining. Nowhere in Azz's run is Diana depicted as a bloodthirsty warmongerer, her entire mission has been about peace and protecting those in danger. Complaining about things like the lack of Steve Trevor and Etta Candy, about her using a sword, etc. is ridiculously facetious. Not every WW run is going to be about the exact same things, contain the exact same characters. Complaining about the story length is equally ridiculous; there is no rule saying a story has to be a certain number of issues long. The villains in the Perez runs were no more complicated than Azz's versions, something you'd realize if you would take your rose-coloured glasses off for one minute.

" excludes optimism, wisdom, and integrity of a true hero not to kill as an ends to a means."

This is flat out false. Diana has portrayed all of these values in the New 52 run and you seem to greatly overstating her desire to kill, while also ignoring the fact that previous iterations of the character weren't shy about killing, either.

All I'm hearing is people complaining that the new Wonder Woman isn't the exact same as their precious Perez or Rucka or whatever versions. These people need to realize that a REBOOT means things are going to change. Wonder Woman has been a stale character for years (she was easily the least popular member of the Justice League out of the main 5), and the New 52 has given her a refreshing change, given her a new identity and, judging from the massive critical acclaim, has done so very successfully.

You know what would've been cooler than Katana? Cassandra Cain.