@FolhaS:
No, Athena and the other gods were present in the story at every stage, she appeared at the end because she also appeared in the beggining and in the middle.
She certainly helps at the end, but Deus Ex Machina were criticized because the gods played no other role other than that. It's lazy writing.
Imagine Dragon Ball but instead of having our heroes search for the balls after every major battle Shenron just appeared because he felt like it.
I don't think Athena's assistance of Odysseus being compared to Shenron does either of them much justice. Athena assists Odysseus because he represents the same things that she does. His wit, strength, will make her favor him.
We still have religion, we still view gods' hands in the same way. The Daredevil tv show talks about his relation with god but it doesn't end with the Rapture, with Daredevil going into heaven and Kingpin into Hell.
It's not just religion, it's worldview. We view the world in a completely different way than our ancestors did, especially when it comes to very basic and fundamental ideas such as free will and divine favor. Stories that work for us would not have worked in the ancient world, and vice versa.
And if Enel showed up at Louguetown he would've been a Deus Ex Machina because there was no reason for us to believe a godly being was about to appear. But now we know he exists and why he can comeback, so that's plot, not Deus Ex Machina.
We knew nothing about Dragon at that point either. There was no reason to think Revolutionaries even existed or would have a reason to save Luffy. In hindsight we do, but that's because of One Piece's arcs telling individual stories as part of a greater whole. I think it works as Deus ex Machina specifically in relation to the story of the Straw Hats in Loguetown.
When I first started reading the discussion I was actually agreeing with you, Dragon was a Deus Ex Machina. A character that appeared out of nowhere an saved the day, even without assuming he was indeed the one responsible for the lightning, he stoped Smoker for no appearent reason other than to let Luffy go on and be happy.
But when we look at Woop Slap talking about Destiny/Fate just a while before it becomes a Chekov Gun, or in this case a Chekov Fate. Something that appears in the beginning of the story in a more subtle way but it's a major problem solver later on.
Yeah, we're never going to see eye to eye on this. The idea that a proclamation of maybe "fate" prevents the use of deus ex machina doesn't make sense to me, especially historically. Intervention of Gods was always a fateful act, especially in Greek theatre. The concepts can't really be separated. Also, I have no problem with this.
Also, Deus Ex Machina meant the end of the story, altough we can use the term to critize something that happens at the end of an arc, it's still just part of an on-going plot and not a real Deus Ex Machina.
If OP ended just has they entered the Grand Line then Dragon would be a full on DEM, but since he's appearence and actions actually serve the long term future he's just part of the main plot.
I don't think you're wrong here, but I also kind of do. I've mentioned that One Piece can successfully use the device Deus Ex Machina because of its long-form storytelling, that transforms it into something greater. Where I think you're sort of wrong is that I feel that most arcs are full stories in their own right and so something like Deus Ex Machina can 100 percent be used. My evidence is right now, in Wano, which is divided into acts that are telling one big story, even as it connects to lots of other ones. Again, i think one of the issues is that I'm not using the term to critique, but to analyze.
–- Update From New Post Merge ---
@theackwardstation:
I understand your point of view that it's both things according to your definition (and, overall, I wouldn't have a problem with things being more than one thing), but the description of Deus Ex Machina to me doesn't include this kind of narrative occasion. There is a meaningful distinction between a random excuse to save a hopeless situation and other development that are unexpected but befitting the plot. For example, read the first chapter of Gantz. What happens there is not a Deus Ex Machina, but the premise of the story, the plot itself.
Before you agree or disagree with me in regards to the definition of Deus Ex Machina (what it includes or not), just think if you understand that distinction. Deus Ex Machina is usually associated to situations where "the author wrote himself into a corner", meaning that he probably focused on raising the stakes and then had to find a cheap excuse to solve the problems he created because it got out of hand. In this kind of situation, the stakes are the main attribute of the story, its meat and bones, and the solution is just an excuse for a happy ending. It's like having your cake and eating it too. However, when the solution itself is the goal and the central piece of plot, its meat and bones, then the plot devices are the things around it.
I would argue that this is how we often use the term today, but that it's not inherent to the term. I understand your distinction, but it seems more a distinction of what determines good vs. bad deus ex machina. Good ones are thematically consistent and often add a layer to the story being told. A great example is the ending of The Lord of the Flies when the boys are rescued and brought back to civilization through the machinations of their own chaos. It's brilliant and complex and makes perfect sense, but is also Deus ex Machina.
I have another way to explain this. For the writer, considering his goals for the story, his "problem" was finding a pretext to have Luffy being saved by a lightning bolt, so having Buggy awkwardly capturing Luffy was the solution he was looking for. Do you see the inversion from a writing perspective? Buggy is the solution, not the problem. The Lightning Bolt is the point, not the solution.
We can only hope to know the problems and solutions that the author has unless they tell us, which is why character is at the heart of the use of the device. I'm analyzing it as a problem for Luffy and the Straw Hats. The problem is Luffy's death and the solution is a lightning bolt strike that none of them have any hand in procuring. This is fact.
I understand what you mean, but I disagree. A Deus Ex Machina happens when there are no other logical solutions available for the writer*, not when he chooses the most improbable one in the menu. When the writer chooses one option, it inherently makes the other fail in the story (and this raises the stakes and make things look even worse), which doesn't mean that those other options were not available for the writer.
Besides that, a Deus Ex Machina, by my understandment of its definition, involves some sort of break with the internal logic of the story or a poor resolution for the thematic conflict. If an outcome is the most befitting for the scene and the one that carries the meaning of the plot, it cannot be a Deus Ex Machina.
*obs.: Obviously, you can argue that any writer can only reach a point of a hopeless situation willingly, so it's almost impossible to discriminate what's really a hopeless situation where there's no solution available other than a Deus Ex Machina. While this is partially true, practice is a lot more difficult as many authors have trouble finding ways to raise up the stakes and they can easily lose balance while trying to make the story more exciting, and then it's usually easier to write a Deus Ex Machina than to rewrite entire sections of your plot.
This again seems to be a fundamental difference in opinion on the use of the term. I don't think it has to be a writer's failure.