StarDestroyer.Net BBS

I'm not sure if this belongs here or if it is breaking any rules. (also, I'm using Millennium falcon or whatever over the BlackSoul for the first time, yay!) Anyway, this isn't a serious thing I'm wondering about, but I'm interested in what you all have to say.

We all have our own ideas about what make a good villain. As somebody's quote says, a good villain is someone who doesn't believe they are one. I understand and believe in the idea of these kinds of villains being more preferable than those who know and like the fact that they're evil or whatever.

However, you can argue in favor of other kinds of villains. I can understand that some villains can be effective in that they know they're evil, but still indulge in it. Honestly, how many of us haven't done malicious things (not serious stuff like robbing or killing, I mean trivial crap like knocking down a tower of blocks.) And we revel in it and acknowledge we're the bad guy. Of course it isn't serious enough to us like butchering a whole town. I'm just throwing that out for examples. I'd like discussion about certain types of baddies you like as well as what you might think of as a good villain.

A villain does not have to be malicious or butchering people. A good villain has to be a credible threat to the heroes.

Everything else is secondary.

Thanas wrote:A villain does not have to be malicious or butchering people. A good villain has to be a credible threat to the heroes.

Everything else is secondary.

What's your opinion if the villain of the story is incompetent or totally unable to harm the protagonist, and instead the story does something like make the hero(es) the villain in a way that they harm others without intending to or something?

Then the hero's flaws are the antagonist.

Note, I said antagonist-- a villain is a specific kind of antagonist. A personality flaw can be an antagonist. A philosophical idea can be an antagonist provided it has an active presence in a story; see Catch 22 for an example of how this can be done. Anything that is an obstacle to the protagonist can be an antagonist, even his own psyche or choices. But a villain is an intelligent antagonist. Not necessarily human, but usually that too. That's why they don't think of themselves as villains-- from their perspective they are a protagonist of their life story. If they are pathetic and ineffectual in the eyes of the audience, people will probably start sympathizing with their POV. At that point, they may stop being an antagonist simply due to people not viewing them as such.

There is only two things I would add to Thanas' point. One is that credibility isn't just in how well the villain blocks the Heroes from getting to their goals, but also in how well they manage to come off as believable characters in their own right. Tie that in with my sig you already referenced, your typical Fantasy demons and Orcs often come off as laughable because they are neither human (humans don't typically pride themselves on being evil) nor really alien (because their way of thinking is too much like ours in other respects). By contrast, you could have a tempter who just doesn't care as long as he gets what he's after. Much more believable. Or you could take a human being and, through the careful use of insanity, have an antagonist that feels thoroughly alien and inscrutable while being technically human. Or a Cthonic entity that is totally alien, but still has its own way of thinking that makes sense given its stated nature.

Second, the level of attention the story pays to a given villain depends on the story and what it means. It can be acceptable to have a cardboard villain as long as the primary antagonist does his/her/its job within the story well, and interacts with the protagonists meaningfully.




I'm not sure whether this really belongs in SLAM...

A villain is just another antagonist: how "good" they are depends on many other things troughout the story. What context do they exist, what theme do they complete, who do they represent, who are around them (whether the villains wants them or not), what else blocks the protagonist's way (for example, ignorance, knowing that Dracula is evil doesn't help if you don't know how to kill him), etc.

A story can be a complex thing. One well-written villain may be good in one sort of story and look ridicolous or out-of-place in another.

Formless wrote: I'm not sure whether this really belongs in SLAM...

It does not! And lo for it has been kicked to OT!

Thanas wrote:A villain does not have to be malicious or butchering people. A good villain has to be a credible threat to the heroes.

Everything else is secondary.

On top of this, I tend to feel the most convincing villains are the ones that don't think they're wrong or evil. Many of the world's most vicious people went down believing they were the good guys in their own story.

Even better if the villain's views are reasonable enough to cast doubt on the protagonist's or even the reader's moral certainty. It shouldn't be obvious to everyone where the real flaw is that led to an evil movement. At least, even if it is, it should be clear that the villain isn't all wrong in seeing the problems that he is attempting to address, and how from his perspective what he plans is really necessary and not just an obvious front for lust for power and indulgence of evil impulses. One of my favorite examples is the Comte from the movie Chocolat (though one might hesitate to call him a villain rather than just an antagonist). He really believes he has the best interests of the village in mind, and holds himself to higher standards that everyone else, though he does sometimes resort to underhanded methods to organize the townspeople against Vianne and her chocolates. In the end, his only real flaw is thinking that he knows what's best for everyone, and trying to micromanage everybody's lives, though he is better at it than most. He makes a very sympathetic character too, which helps the story, I think.

Alright then. To ask the second part of my question, what are some bad guys that you like? (they don't have to be 'good villains')

CrateriaA wrote:Alright then. To ask the second part of my question, what are some bad guys that you like? (they don't have to be 'good villains')

Susan Sylvester from Glee. Completely over the top (she goes so far as to mock the commercials) and still neat to watch.

Thanas wrote:A villain does not have to be malicious or butchering people. A good villain has to be a credible threat to the heroes.

Everything else is secondary.

I'd add to that that the heroes also have to be a credible threat to the villain. If the villain is so over-powered with respect to the heroes that she can only be defeated via deus ex machina then the audience will tend to lose their investment in the struggle between hero and villain, and instead just sit back and wait for the DEM to resolve things.

The heroes and villains of a story should be balanced against each other in such a way that the outcome of their confrontation is difficult to predict (although I believe things should be weighted a bit in the villain's favour to make the heroes sweat a bit more.)

I'd disagree, insofar as you have to consider the nature and genre of the story. Just going off the top of my head; if the heroes are supposed to be on the run, then the villain needs to be overwhelmingly powerful enough that a direct confrontation with them or even just their minions is plausibly out of consideration at least until late in the story. After all, protagonists are supposed to grow over time and its quite common for heroes specifically to "level up" so to speak. Also, weak heroes can give a story a more triumphant feeling when they finally manage to come back from behind. So much so that its practically the number one cliche among sports movies.

And there are horror stories where "winning" over the villain is more about just surviving the night without having your head cut off or your fluids drained. Its pretty much antithetical to the genre to have the protagonists be action heroes, unless its a zombie video game.

Also, Deus Ex Machina are not necessarily bad if handled right-- "deploying" the Deus Ex Machina can be tricky enough to be a challenge in its own right, and a chance for the protagonists to win with cleverness rather than brute strength. Or maybe the Deus Ex Machina is a character who needs to be won over, like a court or a neutral nation. That again changes the kind of virtues the protagonists are going to need to succeed, like leadership or debating ability. Or whatever. And then there are those Deus Ex Machina that work because of something personal to the bad guys or good guys. Really, the reason that kind of plot device is so annoying is because its associated with the writer pulling shit out of their ass at the last minute, not anything intrinsic to the plotting.

When you ask me "best villains" it's hard for me not to say a few. Vader almost immediately comes to mind in terms of the power he exhibits. I also feel that Daniel Plainview of There Will be Blood is a prime example, showing the villain can make an effective protagonist. Finally a personal favorite of mine is The Thing, a creature whose seeming lack of limits associates a really strong feeling of mystery and impending doom. Also showing that the villain need not have a face (a single one anyway), have any dialouge, or even be human.

Also, Deus Ex Machina are not necessarily bad if handled right-- "deploying" the Deus Ex Machina can be tricky enough to be a challenge in its own right,

I would argue that Deus Ex Machina is intrinsically bad. A Deus Ex Machina done right is not a DEM at all - you've established and justified it. There's no contrivance. We saw Rohan preparing for war, and Aragorn rallying the Army of the Dead, and knew that the destruction of the ring was game over for Sauron. So the consequences of all these actions is acceptable. In contrast, wtf eagles?

As far as my favorite villains, Uther Doul from the Scar, who is so goddamn smooth you barely even realize he's the villain. Also, Zaraki Kenpachi from Bleach (when first introduced). He's cheesy as all get out, but is simultaneously so over the top ridiculous that it's just awesome.

Qualities of a good villain? Well, most of what I have to say has already been said. A good villain should resonate with the themes of the work. Their actions should also make sense in the context of their motivations, which should in turn make sense within the context of their background. Contrary to what someone earlier said, I don't think it is necessarily a virtue for the villain to be morally ambiguous (no pun intended). As long as it fits the story, the villain can be absolutely despicable and remain an interesting figure.

Though not the only category of 'good' villains, some of the best are those whose goals and motivations nearly mirror that of the heroes', it's merely the extent the villain is willing to go to achieve them, and what they're willing to sacrifice in the process, that sets them apart. One of the best recent example I can think of is the latest X-men movie (and the X-men franchise in general), Xavier and Magneto agree on nearly everything concerning their main drives in the movie: The betterment of mutants. Magneto simply goes that one step further and sees humanity as a necessary sacrifice to achieve that betterment. When done right it's a beautiful demonstration of how the hero could go wrong.

Kingmaker; emphasis mine wrote:I would argue that Deus Ex Machina is intrinsically bad. A Deus Ex Machina done right is not a DEM at all - you've established and justified it. There's no contrivance. We saw Rohan preparing for war, and Aragorn rallying the Army of the Dead, and knew that the destruction of the ring was game over for Sauron. So the consequences of all these actions is acceptable. In contrast, wtf eagles?

Why? Because you say so?

Say I write a story where literal Greek Gods are watching and having a lark, but are otherwise uncommitted to who wins... right up until one of our heroes summons the balls to appeal to them and try and get their favor. His appeal is heartfelt and persuasive. He offers to go on whatever quest they ask of him, take whatever test is necessary. Etc. After sitting on the decision for a while, and while the hero(es) has been doing stuff, finally one of the Gods (lets say, oh, Aphrodite) takes pity on the hero and intervenes. How is that not a Deus Ex Machina solution? Because you say so?

Or how about the resolution of War of the Worlds by H.G. Wells. Suddenly, all the aliens die by the flu, the earth is saved. Classic Deus Ex Machina ending, but not many people complain-- it makes total sense and is a classic twist ending.

Speaking of twist endings, what do you think of The Twilight Zone? Sudden plot twists that completely change the meaning of the entire story, pulled almost right out of thin air? Oh, but I suppose you will dismiss those on the technicality that they rarely imply Good Things for the heroes.

Or howabout more modern Sci-fi: in TNG's Tapestry, Picard is allowed to live because Q, a Deity in all but name especially in this episode, is implied to have magically healed him of his sudden heart failure problem. OMG, Deus Ex Machina, terrible episode right?! Oh wait, its considered by some to be one of the finest of the run because of how in depth the episode went into the life of Picard, played with the relationship between him and Q, and generally had something profound to say about life. Huh.

Its about as radical a thing as I've said in a while about storytelling, but then again you can't let Wikipedia (or worse... TVTropes) do all the thinking for you. Deus Ex Machina do not have to be characterized by sudden asspulls and contrived situations like you (and admittedy most high school lit teachers) imply they do. The contrivance can be in the inexplicable nature of how they work, a la technobabble or divine power or fucking magic, or in the way they come about suddenly but can be explained (again, like in War of the Worlds). But, that contrivance or suddenness does not necessarily mean they have broken the plot wide open, nor that they must remove any sense of meaning or credibility from the story simply by being there. It takes a lot of care and skill on the part of the writer, to be sure, but they can serve a purpose if used properly. Verisimilitude, foreshadowing, and good old SOD are all part of making it work.

On the other hand, defining the Deus Ex Machina phenomenon as synonymous with bad writing makes it a useless term. It means nothing because you can simply redefine it whenever an exception is brought up. As I see it, convenient labels like that for bad writing are poor excuses for actually thinking about what makes bad writing bad, and insisting upon them even when there are alternative ways of looking at the concept is inane.

Formless wrote:Or how about the resolution of War of the Worlds by H.G. Wells. Suddenly, all the aliens die by the flu, the earth is saved. Classic Deus Ex Machina ending, but not many people complain-- it makes total sense and is a classic twist ending.

War of the Worlds kinda-sorta worked when it originally came out as microbiology was still in its infant stages and at the time it was believable that perhaps an advanced culture had somehow missed it to disastrous ends. In cultural context, I guess it is technically a Deus Ex Machina, but it's the kind where you can look back in retrospect and go, "Well, I can see how it makes sense, if unexpected". It's not the completely-out-of-nowhere saving the day that characterizes most Deus Ex Machinas.

But to be honest, I'm of the opinion that it was a crappy way to end WotW, no matter what version, and a bit of a cop-out.

Speaking of twist endings, what do you think of The Twilight Zone? Sudden plot twists that completely change the meaning of the entire story, pulled almost right out of thin air? Oh, but I suppose you will dismiss those on the technicality that they rarely imply Good Things for the heroes.

That's not a technicality, that's evidence that it is not a Deus Ex Machina in any sense of the term. By its very nature the Deus Ex Machina resolves the conflict. Twilight Zone episodes rarely ever ended with a conflict resolution, instead the surprise-twists merely further complicated things for the protagonists and often left an open-ended, horrific, and definitely not happy ending.

Or howabout more modern Sci-fi: in TNG's Tapestry, Picard is allowed to live because Q, a Deity in all but name especially in this episode, is implied to have magically healed him of his sudden heart failure problem. OMG, Deus Ex Machina, terrible episode right?! Oh wait, its considered by some to be one of the finest of the run because of how in depth the episode went into the life of Picard, played with the relationship between him and Q, and generally had something profound to say about life. Huh.

Not a Deus Ex Machina since it didn't come out of nowhere. People know Q to be a godlike being, and he enjoys both 1) using his godlike powers, and 2) effing around with members of the Federation to teach 'lessons'. Therefore it comes as no unexpected surprise that once Q's 'lesson' is learned, he would use his powers to resolve the conflict.

Its about as radical a thing as I've said in a while about storytelling, but then again you can't let Wikipedia (or worse... TVTropes) do all the thinking for you. Deus Ex Machina do not have to be characterized by sudden asspulls and contrived situations like you (and admittedy most high school lit teachers) imply they do.

Except that is pretty much the exact definition of Deus Ex Machina: A contrived asspull. Sorry, but you can't change the phrase's meaning to suit your argument.

The contrivance can be in the inexplicable nature of how they work, a la technobabble or divine power or fucking magic, or in the way they come about suddenly but can be explained (again, like in War of the Worlds). But, that contrivance or suddenness does not necessarily mean they have broken the plot wide open, nor that they must remove any sense of meaning or credibility from the story simply by being there. It takes a lot of care and skill on the part of the writer, to be sure, but they can serve a purpose if used properly. Verisimilitude, foreshadowing, and good old SOD are all part of making it work.

...except that Deus Ex Machina, by its very definition, cannot be foreshadowed, breaks SoD, etc. Plus, the examples you listed are either not Deuss Ex Machina, or worsened by its presence.

On the other hand, defining the Deus Ex Machina phenomenon as synonymous with bad writing makes it a useless term. It means nothing because you can simply redefine it whenever an exception is brought up. As I see it, convenient labels like that for bad writing are poor excuses for actually thinking about what makes bad writing bad, and insisting upon them even when there are alternative ways of looking at the concept is inane.

Except that the very phrase 'Deus Ex Machina' originated by Quintus Horatius Flaccus teaching poets how to avoid writing crappy endings. From its very inception the phrase was designed to describe bad writing.

Hell, forgot the first part:

Formless wrote:Say I write a story where literal Greek Gods are watching and having a lark, but are otherwise uncommitted to who wins... right up until one of our heroes summons the balls to appeal to them and try and get their favor. His appeal is heartfelt and persuasive. He offers to go on whatever quest they ask of him, take whatever test is necessary. Etc. After sitting on the decision for a while, and while the hero(es) has been doing stuff, finally one of the Gods (lets say, oh, Aphrodite) takes pity on the hero and intervenes. How is that not a Deus Ex Machina solution? Because you say so?

That's not a Deus Ex Machina because it didn't come out of nowhere. Look, you obviously don't know what a Deus Ex Machina actually is, so here: Wikipedia, but it is accurate in this case.

The very first line wrote:A deus ex machina (Latin: "god out of the machine"; plural: dei ex machina) is a plot device whereby a seemingly inextricable problem is suddenly and abruptly solved with the contrived and unexpected intervention of some new event, character, ability, or object.

In other words there are four basic necessities for every Deus Ex Machina:

1) A seemingly inextricable problem.
2) The sudden and abrupt solving of that problem.
3) The solution is completely unexpected and contrived.
4) The solution involves completely new events, characters, abilities or objects.

All your examples save one fail on this.

Your own example: The presence of Greek gods and there abilities are already known, as well as the petition for their aid. Thus requirements 3 and 4 are unsatisfied.

Twilight Zone: Only 1 and 4 are satisfied. Often the stories end without the problem being solved, and new events/characters/whatever only further complicate matters.

Star Trek: 3 and 4 are unsatisfied. Q's general personality and his powers are already known, thus his application of them is not a completely contrived surprise twist.

Again, only War of the Worlds truly fits the definition of Deus Ex Machina, and in my opinion, its a fun story *despite* the Deus Ex Machina, not because of it.

Frankly, the WOTW example just shows how dumb 'clever nerds' are. The aliens are showing directly injecting human blood into themselves, it's not a new element - indeed it's obviously a terrible idea. It's a story about colonialism. Epidemics (until relatively recently) would get anyone, regardless of how 'advanced' their 'culture' was. The aliens were also ignorant of the fucking WHEEL, but not being well informed doesn't make them less effective standins for Europeans ruining everyone else's shit, it probably makes them more effective.

You can have lame, cheap finales wihtout ignorantly tacking on the term 'deus ex machina'. You can just say 'wow, that was shit'. I think the WOTW finale is thematically effective and dramatically effective, so nerds quibbling about alien hygiene is missing the point. You want shitty DEM endings, go watch Doctor DW Who.

So, like just about anything, "DEMs" work fine if you can make it thematically and dramatically effective or resonant. Like how even though some "trope" (lol) is cliche'd or whatever, it can be made powerful just through competent execution. Whereas if you fuck it up, your DEMs and other tropes or cliches will be fucking lame. Okay.

I figure this should fit under user wirting wouldn't it?

Anyway the 'Villain' has moved on from the classic morality version such as Fagin from Oliver twist, its still there but there are many representations to that trait. The character 'V' from the movie is pretty much a villain, but he falls under more anti hero as while he is a terroist his goals is to destroy a dictatorship and change an already established society. In point the Villain can easily be a rebel of authority who sees how the 'good life' is at the expense of our rights. However we may not agree with that if we like how the 'good life' is and see him as a threat.

To me my like of a villain is someone who is relentless in their pursuit, not sadistic or quick to anger but has an immense hatred yet is logical and calculating to a point that you don't realise your being manipulated and solely focused on one goal. Whereas a hero would be described as a shield, someone to preserve or protect a belief/society etc and takes into mind everyone and cares not to being used so long as its for the greater good. The Villain is in my mind someone who is a sword who will cut down anyone and has no fear.

Korgeta wrote:I figure this should fit under user wirting wouldn't it?

Doubtful, as we are not discussing user fiction.

Oni, you are a fucking moron and ignoramous to boot. First, what part of "I find your definition of the term lacking" do you not understand? I know full well what the dictionaries say, and I reject it on the basis that that definition does not fully reflect how the term is used, what people find annoying about it, or even its historical origins. Its original meaning comes from Greek theater to refer to a device (and I mean literal mechanical device here, some kind of crane if I remember my drama class right) that allowed actors playing the gods to descend on a platform so they could properly wow the audience. A few playwrights apparently started using the gods as a crutch to resolve conflicts they didn't know any other way to resolve, and eventually other dramatists and thinkers started advising against it-- most famously Aristotle, who predates Horace.

So, looking back on what the term originally meant, acts of Q are practically the very definition of Deus Ex Machina. Especially in those episodes where Q plays up his pretenses of being divine, I.E. Tapestry. This also disproves your assertion that a Deus Ex Machina's powers cannot be foreshadowed or known ahead of time (as with Q) because every goddamn Greek alive would have known what their gods could and could not do. In fact, they probably would have it better, since the limits of Q's powers are never spelled out whereas the Greek pantheon at least has known domains. Everything Q does is powered by writer's fiat.

The rest of your two posts are flat bullshit on this failure to do your research and failure to do your own thinking. I'm with Stark on this one (though I'm sure he doesn't know it)-- a terrible climax is a terrible climax. A Deus Ex Machina, on the other hand, should refer to a kind of plot device, because trying to fit every little kind of terrible climax into narrowly defined categories misses the point. In fact, about the only thing I will concede is that a twist ending a la the Twilight Zone may not technically qualify because they are frequently intended to nullify the resolution. However, they still come out of nowhere, and operate in a similar fashion, and few people complain.

Now, I'm not necessarily advocating using such Devices. But that has more to do with how hard it is to avoid the pitfalls associated with them than some idiotic belief they must go hand in hand. You even conceded one example (War of the Worlds) where at best you could say "I personally think its a cop out", so frankly... point proven.

Say I write a story where literal Greek Gods are watching and having a lark, but are otherwise uncommitted to who wins... right up until one of our heroes summons the balls to appeal to them and try and get their favor. His appeal is heartfelt and persuasive. He offers to go on whatever quest they ask of him, take whatever test is necessary. Etc. After sitting on the decision for a while, and while the hero(es) has been doing stuff, finally one of the Gods (lets say, oh, Aphrodite) takes pity on the hero and intervenes. How is that not a Deus Ex Machina solution? Because you say so?

No, you chucklefuck, it's not a Deus Ex Machina (it isn't even a fucking twist ending) because such a course of events within a story is clearly foreshadowed. It is not a contrived and unexpected resolution. If the hero goes to the gods for help, and they eventually come back and say "yes", then the hero has successfully resolved the problem through application of his piety and/or persuasiveness.

So, looking back on what the term originally meant, acts of Q are practically the very definition of Deus Ex Machina. Especially in those episodes where Q plays up his pretenses of being divine, I.E. Tapestry. This also disproves your assertion that a Deus Ex Machina's powers cannot be foreshadowed or known ahead of time (as with Q) because every goddamn Greek alive would have known what their gods could and could not do. In fact, they probably would have it better, since the limits of Q's powers are never spelled out whereas the Greek pantheon at least has known domains. Everything Q does is powered by writer's fiat.

A Deus Ex Machina that is foreshadowed ahead of time or anticipated by the themes and events of the story is not a Deus Ex Machina, by definition. The mere presence of a god(like figure) is neither necessary nor adequate for this kind of plot device (it may suck the tension out if handled badly, but that is a different problem entirely). If the presence and/or interest of a god is indicated prior in the story, their appearance does not constitute a DEM because (and here's the really tricky part) their actions are not unanticipated. As to Q being writer's fiat, everything in a story is powered by writer's fiat. Deus Ex Machina lies in a bit of writer's fiat that is not anticipated, even if in retrospect, by the rest of the writer's fiat that came before. Indeed, we generally refer to the various bits of writer's fiat that make up a story not cohering or making sense as "bad writing" (we make occasional exceptions for surrealist works and the like, but those don't appear to be under discussion here).

The War of the Worlds example is not a Deus Ex Machina. It is anticipated both by the events of the story and its themes: technologically superior colonists are brought down by disease rather than any accomplishment on the part of those being colonized. From the episodes I've seen of the Twilight Zone, the same is almost invariably true there as well. I've not seen the TNG episode you cite, but the summaries of it I can find indicate that it is no Deus Ex Machina at all, since the entire plot appears to facilitated by Q. The idea of his actions being Deus Ex Machina is negated by his general involvement.

Deus Ex Machina do not have to be characterized by sudden asspulls

Yes it does, because that's its definition.

First, what part of "I find your definition of the term lacking" do you not understand? I know full well what the dictionaries say, and I reject it on the basis that that definition does not fully reflect how the term is used, what people find annoying about it, or even its historical origins.

To what end? What you're doing is watering down an established term for no reason and conflating it with any kind of twist ending. A Deus Ex Machina is, as you say a type of plot device. The definition of which has already been quoted, so I won't bother. None of the examples you've given thus far support your argument. Literally no one has argued that a bad ending must be a Deus Ex Machina. Please demonstrate an adequate reason why we should use your (as of yet unstated) definition over the one we've got. Oh, and while you're at it, how about you actually state your definition.

So, like just about anything, "DEMs" work fine if you can make it thematically and dramatically effective or resonant. Like how even though some "trope" (lol) is cliche'd or whatever, it can be made powerful just through competent execution. Whereas if you fuck it up, your DEMs and other tropes or cliches will be fucking lame. Okay.

No, Shroom, that's not it at all. The only ones who've mentioned tropes so far are you and Formless, both to make fatuous "hurr hurr tropes" comments. Deus Ex Machina is a plot device, not a trope.

So what we apparently learn in this thread is that when someone challenges per-concieved notions of how a literary concept works based on actual history of the concept, with literary examples, you should point to the dictionary and stomp your feet like a little child until people agree with you.

But I like how you completely ignore my argument that the dictionary definition is useless and overly narrow, stating "you're watering down an established term for no reason" when I already gave four of them.

Fuck off, you illiterate twit.

Edit:

Literally no one has argued that a bad ending must be a Deus Ex Machina.

This is a blatant strawman. I've disputed that a Deus Ex Machina must be tied to bad endings, not the other way around. Dumbass.