Is Invincible Fascist Propaganda? (the comic) *major spoilers*
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.
(And when I say the Superhero genre has baked in fascist elements, I am in no way denying, how it has also been genuinely used to critique those very systems, it’s complicated.)
