 Adopting a constituent ontology will not, by itself, bring DDS into the clear. Suppose properties (whether assayed as universals or as tropes) are ontological parts of the ordinary (thick) particulars that have them and that this having is understood quasi-mereologically as a kind of part-whole relation rather than as an exemplification relation that spans the abstract-concrete divide. This would still leave us with the puzzle of how a whole could be identical to one of its proper parts, and the related puzzle of how two distinct proper parts could be identical to each other. Construing properties as parts of the things that have them does not, by itself, show how there could be a simple being. But if properties are parts, then at least Plantinga’s dismissal of DDS on the ground that nothing concrete can be identical to anything abstract can itself be dismissed.