 It seems, then, that our aporetic pentad is an inconsistent pentad. The defender of DDS cannot deny either the divine simplicity or the divine necessity, which is an entailment of simplicity. But an upholder of the divine simplicity has the option of denying (1) and maintaining that, while God is L-free, creaturely agents are free only in a compatibilist sense (‘C-free’). If creaturely agents are C-free, but not L-free, then Oswald could not have done otherwise, and it is possible for the upholder of divine simplicity to say that that Oswald’s C-free choice is no more a threat to the divine aseity than the fact that God knows the contingent truth that creaturely agents exist. The latter is not a threat to the divine aseity because the existence of creaturely agents derives from God in a way that Oswald’s L-free choice does not derive from God.