It's interesting that Deanna (among others) sees receiving power in exchange for faith as something to draw out more faith (further empowering the gods) rather than receiving something in exchange for what one has put into this relationship. Or, even, receiving what one desires or seeks or even needs from that relationship.

In real life, there is an idea that there is no pure altruism. When we do something good for others or engage in any sort of act, there is always a minimum of something we ourselves gain from it, including it may make us happy to do so or it improves our relationship with that person or we believe it betters society for everyone (which includes us) or what have you. And, sometimes, I wonder if this specific framework about the Exandrian gods begins with this belief that the gods must be true altruists, and if they're not, they're using mortals. I wonder if there is a sense of a social contract breached that when an individual finds comfort in worship, that god receives power from that individual's faith.

This isn't necessarily how Deanna thinks of it. I'm digressing a bit here. To get back on it, it's interesting Deanna conceptualizes this as a bit of a bait (for lack of a better word, though Ludinus certainly believes it's bait), power for faith to generate more faith as a resource. But, it leaves a question (as least for me) of how she would imagine this relationship to ideally work. Is there existence of a belief that an ideal god-mortal relationship is one where the god does not benefit? Where mortals would not receive anything that could be construed as encouraging a behavior that would benefit the gods, which may involve not answering prayers? (Is such a thing even possible? Mortals will find comfort and solace and meaning in even silence, as Fjord and Jester discuss in 2.106.) It is suggested she argues constantly with FRIDA about whether the gods should be removed (non-violently, apparently) from the scenario, thus disagrees with their idea you simply remove the gods, but I AM curious: what DOES she believe the most ideal relationship here would be if the gods were to remain?

The big thing here is that these questions about the gods also feel like the same philosophical issues we struggle with in relationships to one another as real people: whether there is an actually true altruism, the "purity" of our love and devotion and service to another if we "get something out of it", the process of mutually giving and benefiting, anxieties over imbalances and fairness in a relationship because not every exchange can be perfectly equivalent and equal (and whether we should expect it to always be).

The way Deanna frames mortal relationship to the gods makes me curious how she would talk about other types of relationships. Oddly, probably because it is difficult to discuss, there's very little sense of what she thinks of her relationship with her husband, not even a clear sense at the moment of whether she feels resentment, but there is a sense of like... ironclad obligation there. A promise fulfilled even when it was horrifying to do so. There's something interesting in that her husband moved on before she was raised, thus he did not benefit from her resurrection beyond completion of an obligation. I wonder how it compares.