smilingcrescent

Let me explain. One thing I've been noticing a lot is how people react to season 3/early season 4 Mark Grayson aka when he's in the black and blue suit.

In season 3 of invincible and like the first 4 eps of season 4, Mark is kind of a terrible person. He refuses to reason with villains who want to be redeemed, He strangles Cecil (twice) he refuses to help titan, he refuses to help Dropkick and Fightmaster (he only ends up helping because he's forced to), he kills immortal, he refuses to help with Powerplex until he's put his family in danger (resulting in them getting fried), he breaks into the pentagon, he refuses to help during the Invincible war (even though his little brother is) And he only originally fights conquest because he 'needs something to punch.'

Then in season 4 he almost kills Dinosaurus (even though he's technically innocent, he does end up killing Rus, he almost kills Titan, and he kills that Lava chick immediately, everyone always calls him a bum and a fake hero, but I always thought the point of the "blue suit era" was to show him being selfish and ruthless and immature. I thought it did a good job of showing how the trauma of everything and everyone pointing towards the idea of him being a monster like his father, kind of turned him into one.

The comics go even harder into this, such as showing him threatening to kill Amber's new boyfriend when he learns he's abusive or replying "sometimes" when Oliver asks if he ever thought their dad might be right.

People completely seem to misunderstand this though. Especially his decision to sit out the Invincible war. When this happened I saw so many people calling Mark a bum and comparing him to heroes liek Peter Parker, who "would never do something like that" and yeah, they're right, but INVINCIBLE isn't anything like the spider man comics.

Spider-man has been interpreted and re run so many times that they're are certain character traits present within every incarnation, ie young, smartass, no-kill rule, broke, and beholden to his iconic motto (with great power comes great responsibility) there are absolutely exceptions to this, but for the most part when you read a spiderman comic, you know what you're going to get with the character.

Part of the point of INVINCIBLE is that the story is about change. It's a fixed run of comics, giving it the benefit of allowing it's main character to grow and develop and actually have a linear plotline with a beginning middle and satisfying end. That means that the character goes through changes, season 1 or 2 Mark wouldn't have sat out the Invincible war, but season 3 does because that's where Mark is in his character arc.

There's this great essay that I reference A LOT when talking about Invincible called "super position" by David Graeber. In it he critiques superheroes for essentially being defenders of the status quo, they fight against change. While this of course can be used to say something about them politically, it also demonstrates why narratively so many of them, despite undergoing significant change, rarely ever undergo permanent change to their characters.

INVINCIBLE, a comic praised for it's subversion of superhero tropes, takes this EXTREMELY common superhero trope of a stagnant status quo and flips it on it's head, it subverts it if you will, by having it's character be constantly changing and in some cases making unheroic choices that he wouldn't have made earlier on. He doesn't just develop good traits, but bad ones too. Because the honest truth is that the trauma superheroes go through wouldn't realistically just teach them important life lessons, trauma doesn't always make you a better person, in fact it often makes you worse and Invincible nails this. So many superhero stories claim to show how trauma effects their characters, but then are too scared to actually portray the ugly parts.

This guy might be delighted for later on in the comics if he’s worried about the politics being too binary as they seem currently, citing The Legend of Korra as an example of what he fears (which also has minorities and the disenfranchised written and represented by white men - look up: the politics of TLOK video essay series by Kay and Skittles on YouTube). Hopefully Kirkman’s white liberal stance has evolved to be more nuanced/he’s gotten a lot more diverse and competent writing staff alongside him by that time. There’s hope as Mark is obviously being presented to be made fun of, questioned, and made to be uncomfortable with by the audience. His decision-making this season absolutely feels intentionally warped. Also, maybe keeping Eve white can play a part too subtextually. 💀

More:

yeah, no SHIT. not just because viltrum was a spartan murder nightmare dedicated to strength above all. because that's not the viltrum these viltrumites lived on prior to its destruction.

So if you’re even slightly interested in Invincible, you’ve heard the complaints. About how the power levels are all over the place and nonsensical. And you’ve also probably heard the complaint about why Invincible gets criticised for it so much.

And in my opinion it comes down to a couple reasons

For starters is the fact that in many other superhero stories, how strong the hero is isn’t ever plot significant. In a general sense yes, you do need to know how powerful a character is for stakes and consistency. But in the case of Invincible and Mark, we are told time and time again by the writers how he’s the strongest hero on earth, how he’s the only one who can fight viltrumites, and how Earth would be fucked without him.

Yet repeatedly he is shown to not be the strongest, plenty of other characters can fight Viltrumites pretty alright, and Earth seems to do fine without him. Imagine if you were watching JJK, and got introduced to Gojo and how’s he’s so powerful his very existence altered Jujutsu society. And then he lost his first fight in the series. And then the show just kept trucking along like he was the strongest. You’d call bullshit.

And the second reason comes down to the show’s addiction to the ‘flying brick’ category of characters. 90% of the shows characters are some variety of strong guy who punches hard, and the 10% who aren’t rarely ever get a chance to fight. So when a guy who’s strong and can fly fights a guy who’s strong and can fly, it becomes very easy to scale down to real world terms how the fight should go. Every fight in Invincible is basically a skinny 12 year old vs prime Mike Tyson. The kid has no other powers, no strategy, no weapons. Nothing. Yet somehow the kid wins. And the kid here can be an analogy for Mark somehow winning to random fucking bugs somehow winning

Flashy and diverse powersets can really help bridge the gap between fighters and avoid blatant inconsistencies like this. There will still likely be inconsistencies sure, but most audience members won’t care. Going back to my JJK comparison, take the Sendai colony fight. It’s Yuta vs Ryu and Uro. ‘But Yuta was said to be second only to Gojo! How is he struggling to these guys?!’ Because look at them! I don’t care if he’s above Gojo, he’s still gonna struggle against someone with laser blasts that can follow you, and the woman who can bend the damn sky.

There are other reasons too of course. Like how some people have pointed out how the Viltrumites seem to act on video game logic with their knife hand move. Only using it after punching the opponent for 10 minutes achieving nothing, to win instantly with the knife hand they could have used right away like they were filling up a combo meter. But I think the two points I listed are the main ones I haven’t seen people talk about much.

Earlier I said I had some thoughts about the design of the Viltrumite uniforms. I didn't say they were especially deep or insightful thoughts, but I wanted to express them anyway. I actually like the design a lot. For one thing it's simple to draw and has afforded me some (much needed) art practice...

...more practice is needed

But as I draw my horrible scribbles, the costume design suggests several different things to me. Obviously, the pure white/gray in this context does not suggest goodness and light, but rather strict conformity, sterility, suppression of individuality. It's so plain, and apart from a few minor details and the Emperor/Regent's royal blood red, every costume is exactly the same. No bold, splashy supervillain colors here, but supervillains they are, just the same.

The first time I drew the overskirt of the uniform, I couldn't shake the mental imagery of a butcher's apron. Even though it doesn't serve that function, these guys are butchers, let's not kid ourselves. While most of us are loath to get blood on a fresh white shirt, I imagine Viltrumites think the blood splats show up real pretty on white. Fists drenched in blood and all that.

And I like how the sleeves are long enough to partially cover the hand. I imagine it was meant to approximate the look of boxing tape or sparring gloves, but in a sillier moment I realized it also looks like cute sweater paws. Here comes Conquest's fist through my head for suggesting such a thing:

sound fx: knuckle cracking

Going back to the overskirt, I initially thought it was an odd detail, but I actually think it fits their aesthetic better than I knew. The uniform is the typical comic book bodysuit, but it's not how we're used to seeing it. It's just as tight and formfitting, but the skirt breaks up the profile a bit, and the suit shows no skin except the hands and face. It shows off their bulging muscles, the outlines of their bodies, except in one place: the groin and butt remain covered. Are Viltrumites... modest?

does this remind you of anything

2. Your creativity matters and so does your ability to share it

3. Serial harassers in fandom spaces are beginning to express discomfort that sites like AO3 completely strip their ability to do anything about fic they don't like, sometimes going as far as leaving entire fandoms due to the influx of "problematic fiction without a chance for consequences to the author". Posting your fanworks to AO3 actively contributes to making harassers feel unsafe and powerless in fandom

4. Militant anti-fanfic content creators also cannot do anything about fic posted to AO3

5. You can post anonymously to AO3, with the ability to de-anonymize at any time

In which Kregg builds a restaurant™

The Krusty Kregg? The Kregg Krab? I don't know what to call this...

So after the finale where Eve reveals she got an abortion, there was the typical outrage and debate you can expect between pro-life and pro-choice people. But I personally have not seen any real talk about the scene itself. Whether people thought it was a poignant scene, a sad one, whether they’re excited to see where it goes etc. Now this could partially be due to the aforementioned debate drowning it out, but it’s also because I think the whole plotline itself is such a nothing burger

So I should say that I don’t think the whole plotline itself is that bad, it all makes sense and is consistent. In the sense that Eve said she didn’t want kids, and then proceeded to not have kids. But the plot is just such a clear lazy afterthought by the writers. It starts with her losing her powers, something not even Mark really seems to care about. Then we learn the cause is because she’s pregnant. Then she’s just not in the next 4 episodes, not seen or anything. And then in the finale we learnt she had an abortion. So my only real reaction to the scene is just ‘Ok. Kinda forgot you were pregnant tbh.’

1. Slow down at emotionally important moments.

Big emotions need space to land. If a scene feels rushed, pause the plot briefly to show how the moment affects the character.

2. Add reactions, not explanations.

Instead of explaining what a character feels, show it through physical responses, hesitation, or small actions that reveal emotion naturally.

3. Ground every scene in the senses.

If a scene feels thin, add one or two sensory details—sound, texture, smell, or temperature—to make the moment feel lived-in.

4. Let thoughts interrupt action.

A line of internal thought can deepen a scene without slowing it too much. Thoughts show stakes, fear, longing, or conflict beneath the action.

5. Expand consequences, not events.

You don’t need more things to happen—you need to show what matters. Focus on how events change relationships, decisions, or self-perception.

6. Strengthen setting where emotion peaks.

The environment should echo or contrast the emotion of the scene. Setting is not decoration—it’s emotional reinforcement.

7. Add specific details instead of general ones.

Underwriting often relies on vague language. Swap “they argued” for one sharp line of dialogue or a specific breaking point.

8. Let dialogue breathe.

Short dialogue exchanges without pauses can feel flat. Add beats—silence, gestures, interruptions—to give the conversation weight.

9. Show transitions between scenes.

If scenes jump too quickly, readers feel disoriented. A brief transition helps establish time, mood, and emotional continuity.

10. Clarify stakes early in the scene.

If readers don’t know what can be lost, scenes feel empty. Make sure the character wants something specific and fears losing it.

11. Use the “what are they feeling right now?” check.

After each major beat, ask what emotion is dominant in that moment. If it’s missing on the page, the scene is likely underwritten.

12. Expand scenes that feel “too clean.”

Conquest (show and comic) has already assaulted mark. But he is many people’s favorite viltrumite (I have no problems with this. He’s not real.)

But the implications of all this Anissa hate is what makes me think. It is vexing how people say sexual assault is somehow worse or more damaging without thinking of how that makes survivors feel.

Or how people use her as an argument, like she actually is a realistic representation of real world female rapists. It’s so much more common for intimate partners or family members to rape.

Anyway, I hope show Anissa gets more love and they don’t do the scene or at least make it not pornographic. I want her to have a complex developed character arc. Give her some Debbie level plot!

As proxima-bee says, that scene, if adapted could have Thragg in the crater making her do it , or some other scene showing the audience to see she’s also being coerced.

Ugh, not looking forward to what Thragg does either. why doesn’t anyone hate him for a much larger scale act? I think both Anissa and thragg are interesting, AND have problematic actions.

But they’re characters not people. He should be criticized for his role in Thraxa, and the writers and the fans should recognize that Anissa represents / is written as more complicated than a sexually violent predator.

She should also be shown as a victim of forced reproduction. She didn’t want to get pregnant. She isn’t even as violent as other viltrumites in the show.

Maulers in s2 ("that's good, Mark, that's what happens when you work for me!" — not a very compelling argument, Cecil), King Immortal (kidnapped into THE FUTURE), Volcanikka (summoned to Hell to do this! Literally!)...

It's just... Does he feel like he's a dog on a chain, sometimes? Does it ever disgust him, that it seems to be the only thing he's good for, in those people's eyes? Like mini shadow of Conquest's feelings, you know. Remember the beggining of s2 when he met the Maulers and Levy? they expressed explicit desire to fight him, and Mark said, "You have no idea how much I wanted you to say this." and he smiled. Ever since the s1e2 (the second Flaxan battle) it was teased frequently, something that gives Mark sort of bloodlust, battle rage, idk. And his love for fight. Mark is concerned about this, in s2e1. It was the reason he didn't join the fight in "Karma Police" part of the episode, when two superpowered criminals were messing a scene up and throwing police cars into air. It was the thing his admittedly a bit fragile mental state was uncomfortably resonating with when Todd was saying "I bet you wish you got those genes, huh?", Mark's ears ringing. It was the thing he told Eve about, "When I was a kid, I always wanted to be my dad. What if that happens? What if I become him, and I don't even know it?"

It was the thing that made Mark wish even more battle, even more destruction, after the Invincible War, when Conquest came. "The only thing I want to do right now is to hit something as hard as I can."

In comics, Anissa says, "Our people are quick to turn violent. It is something we all struggle with. Have you not experienced that yourself?"

Mark IS quick to turn violent. He's kind of a hothead. He jumps into everything without thinking much. He normally doesn't have any desire to kill. To hurt. He's not sadistic in any way. He does want to fight though. To the point where he has to actively suppress this part of him, in the show at least.

But is it a Viltrumite thing? Like. Is it actually inate? Reading comics, I would say "Yes". But Mark is different in comics. And viltrumites are different there, too. A bit.

Watching the show... I'm not so sure that this thing Mark fears is an inate Viltrumite thing. They seem to be more level headed in fights. Consistent in their approach. Thinking their moves through. Methodical in their violence. It's their tool. Yes, it's easy for them. Yes, they choose to do it instead of solving conflicts peacefully. But it's still only the tool, I think.

For Mark though? Not so much. It's like he is one with it. And he's emotional. And his battle performance is very dependent on his subconscience and how he feels at the moment. Unlike the Viltrumites and Oliver. In the show.

In the show viltrumites are not really angry people, you know? Sure, they are indoctrinated and cut out the compassion out of each other, slaughtered their kin for it and all. But they are not very angry. At least it doesn't feel like it. They are capable of it, but with Mark it feels like something more, you know.

Idk.

It's a Mark thing. 🤷🤷

So, back to what I was trying to say. Does it bother Mark that people keep using him to inflict harm all the time? I'd say yes (and it's obviously even worse when he's tricked, like with Titan), but does he ever feel disgusted, specifically? Used? Good for nothing else? A dog on a chain?

Would we get a Conquest situation sooner or later, if Mark-Cecil confrontation in s3e2 didn't happen? Would he feel the similarity when Conquest would make his "I'm so lonely" speech?

do u think civilians have debates on vigilante/heroes who are kids? child labor lowkey? do u think oliver being like suspiciously possible 4 yrs old at BEST like shatters a portion of the internet? or is that a conspiracy for overtly parasocial hero fans? how do omni-man fans exist after the s1 finale? denial or??? do invincible (in-universe) fans hear constant slander that ur fav didn't even stop omni-man, or do they boast he was the only hero that tried??? #where was rexsplode when omni-man attacked.

Or: Why I Don’t Like the Ending

I love superheroes. I grew up on them. But no genre is without it’s flaws, and this one has a very particular, very insistent flaw: it keeps flirting with Fascism. Sometimes knowingly. Sometimes with the bashful innocence of a golden retriever goose-stepping by accident.

At the heart of the superhero myth is the strongman fantasy: the Übermensch in tights. The “special” who stands above the ordinary, waging endless righteous war against “evil” others to protect “the innocent.” It’s baked right into the DNA.

If you doubt me, take one of the most beloved superhero films ever, The Incredibles. I adored it as a kid, but let’s be honest: it’s basically Objectivism for children. One of its central messages is that some people are just better, and it’s unfair to ask them to dim their brilliance for everyone else’s sake. Cue the iconic line:

“If everyone is super, no one is.”

Sounds inspiring until you realize it’s one step away from “some are born to rule.”

Now, I’m not saying The Incredibles was designed as propaganda. But propaganda doesn’t need to announce itself with a swastika flag. It can seep in through structure and payoff. There’s a brilliant breakdown of this in a long (but worth it) video essay on fascist media, which explains how propaganda can masquerade as its own critique.

The gist:

A film can appear 90% anti-fascist, and still end up completely fascist by the last act, if the final moral turn flips sympathy toward the ideology it claimed to reject.”

The example given is Hero (2002). Most of that movie follows a man trying to end tyranny by killing the Emperor. The narrative trains us to root for him, until the ending, when he decides, actually, the Emperor was right all along. His submission is framed as noble. The title itself tricks us: Hero isn’t about defiance, but obedience.

That’s how ideological sleight-of-hand works: by seducing the viewer first, then quietly swapping the moral cards while the audience’s guard is down.

Which brings me back to Invincible.

For most of its run, Invincible looks like it knows exactly what it’s doing. It seems to get the fascist subtext baked into superhero stories, and to be actively deconstructing it. The Viltrumites are portrayed as what they are: space fascists. Eugenic, imperialistic, obsessed with purity and domination.

Mark Grayson, our protagonist, is the moral counterpoint, the boy who rejects his father’s genocidal worldview. For almost a hundred issues, the comic insists that empathy and humility are stronger than brute force.

And then comes the ending.

Mark becomes God-Emperor of the universe. Okay, technically “benevolent ruler of the Viltrumite Empire,” but let’s not kid ourselves. The empire isn’t dismantled, it’s rebranded. Colonization doesn’t stop, it just gets a PR glow-up. And the story treats all of this as progress.

Let’s break it down:

• Nolan’s Restoration. Mark’s father is “restored” to his rightful place as ruler through bloodline, literally a return to monarchy framed as moral resolution. The comic treats this like healing the galaxy’s wound, as if the problem wasn’t the system of hereditary autocracy itself, just the wrong guy in charge. Once the “good king” returns, the empire can be great again.

• Mark’s Succession. After Nolan’s death, Mark inherits the crown. But instead of dismantling empire, he leans into it. His rule is “benevolent,” sure, but it’s still imperialism with better manners. He becomes the cosmic equivalent of a colonizer who insists he’s bringing peace, not subjugation. Planets are still being folded into an expanding empire, they’re just doing it with smiles and handshakes now.

• The Destruction of Democracy. This is the kicker. Mark literally destroys a functioning intergalactic democracy, wipes it out, because it’s “corrupt” and “inefficient.” And the narrative frames this as the right thing to do. The democracy’s biggest crime? Being slow. Debating too much. Not acting decisively enough. The comic rewards him for choosing decisive strength over collective deliberation, textbook fascist logic dressed up as heroic pragmatism.

• The Language of Benevolent Strength. The final chapters drip with that “we rule for your own good” rhetoric. The empire is now “peaceful,” the conquest “orderly.” The Viltrumites are still an occupying force, but one that talks about unity and harmony. It’s space colonialism in moral cosplay “saving” the galaxy from chaos by ruling it. The same narrative logic that justified European empires, now projected onto alien worlds.

And because we’ve spent so long sympathizing with Mark, because the story built him up as the moral heart, we buy it. We’re told this is the good ending. The problem isn’t power, the comic whispers, it’s who wields it.

That’s the same ideological sleight of hand Hero pulled. The anti-fascist becomes the fascist, and the story calls it growth. It begins as a rejection of tyranny and ends up reinforcing it.

By its final issue, Invincible doesn’t dismantle the strongman myth; it crowns him king of the cosmos. It doesn’t reject empire; it canonizes it as destiny. And it doesn’t defend democracy; it vaporizes it for daring to be slow.

Dunno if this take is unique or a common critique. The ending really bothered my ever since I read it. I just couldn’t figure out why.

Then I stumbled across an interview with the creator Robert Kirkman, calling Jeff Bezos a “great man” And I was like huh the politics in Invincible being against strong-men, cult of personality leaders does not seem to line up with that statement. Plus it just really skeeved me out.

It didn’t click for me, for years. Until I read Watchmen and saw how it dealt with the baked in conservatism in comics, (and masterfully deconstructed it) it still didn’t completely click though, until I saw that video, stewed on it for a few hours and then a lightbulb went off in my head.

But hey, I’m completely open to critique. I know this is a fairly out-there take and I’m writing this at almost 2 A.M. while the idea is still fresh in my mind. So who knows whether this even turns out coherent.

Anyway, I hope they change the ending in the cartoon.

Besides that, the ending sentiment of answering that question posed all the way back in the very beginning about what Mark will have in 500 years, is beautiful.

Ultimately, this is just an observation and I don’t want to ruin anyone’s enjoyment of either the comic or show.