Honestly is Invincible even meant to be a subversion?
Because I heard from someone else that Kirkman doesn't even considers Invincible a subversion and just wrote it because he likes superheroes.
No idea if that's actually true but it would makes sense if you consider that Invincible is just DC/Dragonball lite with a slightly modified version of the Darth Vader storyline from Star Wars.
For example if we take the multiverse stuff, that part of the story just takes a cliche from superhero comics and plays it completely straight, what exactly is the intended subversion here? Or is the more logical answer that it actually just exist in the comic because the author thought it was entertaining?