Is 'American Comics: The Strongest Villain' Based On Marvel Or DC?

To me, 'ruthless' nails it best. It carries a quiet, efficient cruelty that doesn’t need theatrics — the villain who trims empathy away and treats people as obstacles. 'Ruthless' implies a cold practicality: they’ll burn whatever or whoever stands in their path without hesitation because it serves a goal. That kind of language fits manipulators, conquerors, and schemers who make calculated choices rather than lashing out in chaotic anger. I like using 'ruthless' when I want the reader to picture a villain who’s terrifying precisely because they’re controlled. It's different from 'sadistic' (which implies they enjoy the pain) or 'brutal' (which suggests violence for its own sake). For me, 'ruthless' evokes strategies, quiet threats, and a chill that lingers after the scene ends — the kind that still gives me goosebumps when I think about it.

I've always loved tracing where larger-than-life comic heroes come from, and when it comes to that kind of swaggery, rebellious frontier hero in Italian comics, a good place to point is 'Blek le Roc'. Created in the 1950s by the trio known as EsseGesse (Giovanni Sinchetto, Dario Guzzon and Pietro Sartoris), 'Blek le Roc' debuted in Italy and quickly became one of those simple-but-epic characters who felt both American and distinctly Italian at the same time. The context matters: post-war Italy was hungry for adventure, and Westerns, pulps and US strips poured in via cinema and magazines. The creators mixed American Revolutionary War settings, folk-hero tropes, and bold, clean art that resonated with kids and adults alike. That combination—that hyper-heroic yet approachable protagonist, serialized in pocket-sized comic books—set the template for many Italian heroes that followed, from 'Tex' to 'Zagor'. Personally, I love how 'Blek' feels like an honest, rough-around-the-edges champion; he’s not glossy, he’s heartfelt, and that origin vibe still feels refreshingly direct to me.

I get excited whenever someone asks this — yes, you absolutely can make comics without traditional drawing chops, and I’d happily toss a few of my favorite shortcuts and philosophies your way. Start by thinking like a storyteller first: scripts, thumbnails and pacing matter far more to readers initially than pencil-perfect anatomy. I sketch stick-figure thumbnails to lock down beats, then build from there. Use collage, photo-references, 3D assets, panel templates, or programs like Clip Studio, Procreate, or even simpler tools to lay out scenes. Lettering and rhythm can sell mood even if your linework is rough. Collaboration is golden — pair with an artist, colorist, or letterer if you prefer writing or plotting. I also lean on modular practices: create character turnaround sheets with simple shapes, reuse backgrounds, and develop a limited palette. Study comics I love — like 'Scott Pilgrim' for rhythm or 'Saga' for visual economy — and copy the storytelling choices, not the exact art style. Above all, ship small: one strong one-page strip or short zine teaches more than waiting to “be good enough.” It’s doable, rewarding, and a creative joy if you treat craft and story equally. I’m kind of thrilled every time someone finishes that first page.

I used to think mastery was a single destination, but after years of scribbling in margins and late-night page revisions I see it more like a long, winding apprenticeship. It depends wildly on what you mean by 'mastering' — do you want to tell a clear, moving story with convincing figures, or do you want to be the fastest, most polished page-turner in your friend group? For me, the foundations — gesture, anatomy, panel rhythm, thumbnails, lettering — took a solid year of daily practice before the basics felt natural. After that first year I focused on sequencing and writing: pacing a punchline, landing an emotional beat, balancing dialogue with silence. That stage took another couple of years of making whole short comics, getting crushed by critiques, and then slowly improving. Tool fluency (inking digitally, coloring, using perspective rigs) added months but felt less mysterious once I studied tutorials and reverse-engineered comics I loved, like 'Persepolis' or 'One Piece' for pacing. Real mastery? I think it’s lifelong. Even now I set small projects every month to stretch a weak area — more faces, tighter thumbnails, better hands. If you practice consistently and publish, you’ll notice real leaps in 6–12 months and major polish in 2–5 years. For me, the ride is as rewarding as the destination, and every little page I finish feels like a tiny victory.

Binging the animated 'Invincible' left my jaw on the floor in a way the comics surprised me years ago, but for very different reasons. The biggest thing I kept thinking about was how the medium changes the shock: the comic panels let you linger on grotesque detail at your own pace, zooming in on Ryan Ottley’s hyper-detailed linework and letting the brain fill in the motion. The show, though, weaponizes sound, timing, and motion — a swing becomes a cacophony, blood has a soundtrack, and the movement makes every hit feel like it landed in your chest. That means scenes that were brutal on the page often feel even more immediate and sickening in animation, even when they’re pretty faithful adaptations. Tone and pacing are another major split. The comic can spend months slowly grinding through Mark’s awkward teenage growth, the increasingly cosmic stakes, and a grotesque escalation of Viltrumite violence over hundreds of issues. The show condenses arcs, rearranges beats, and leans into family drama and dark humor to keep episodes sharp and bingeable. That compression changes maturity in a subtle way: the comic’s horror often comes from long-term consequences and the way trauma compounds over time, while the show hits you with concentrated shocks and then has to show the fallout within a tighter runtime. It also chooses which adult themes to emphasize — revenge and empire-building get the grand panels in the books, whereas the show lingers more on parental abuse, consent-adjacent awkwardness, and the emotional wreckage of lying to people you love. Finally, the depiction of sex, language, and psychological cruelty differs in tenor rather than kind. Neither is prissy: both use coarse language, adult situations, and moral ambiguity. The comics sometimes feel rawer because your mind assembles the missing motion and the serialized nature lets darker ideas simmer. The show, on the other hand, occasionally softens or shifts certain elements for pacing or character sympathy, or plays them louder to provoke a gut reaction. Bottom line — if you want slow-burn worldbuilding and escalating cosmic brutality, the comics deliver that long haul; if you want visceral, in-your-face trauma and a soundtrack to the violence, the series hits harder in the moment. Personally, I love both — the show made me recoil and clap at the same time, while the comics keep me coming back for the creeping dread that only long-form storytelling can give.

Big-picture first: 'DC' comes from the title 'Detective Comics'. Back in the 1930s and 1940s the company that published Batman and other early heroes took its identity from that flagship anthology title, so the letters DC originally stood for Detective Comics — yes, literally. The company behind Superman, Batman, Wonder Woman and so many iconic characters grew out of those pulpy detective and crime anthology magazines, and the initials stuck as the publisher's name even as it expanded into a whole universe of heroes. Marvel, on the other hand, isn't an abbreviation. It started as Timely Publications in the 1930s, later became Atlas, and by the early 1960s the brand you now know as 'Marvel' was embraced. There's no hidden phrase behind Marvel; it's just a name and a brand that came to represent a house style — interconnected characters, street-level concerns, and the specific creative voices of people like Stan Lee, Jack Kirby and Steve Ditko. So while DC literally points to a title, Marvel is a chosen name that became shorthand for an entire creative approach. I love how that contrast mirrors the companies themselves: one rooted in a title that symbolized a certain kind of pulp storytelling, the other a coined brand that grew into a shared-universe powerhouse. It’s neat trivia that makes me appreciate both houses even more when I flip through old issues or binge the movies.

My take? If we’re talking sheer sensory power while blind, a few iconic names jump out and they each shine in very different ways. Fujitora from 'One Piece' is one of my favorites to bring up — he’s canonically blind but uses Observation Haki to perceive the world, and that gives him battlefield-scale awareness you don’t usually see. He can 'read' opponents, sense movements and intent, and combine that with his gravity power to affect things at range. In terms of situational command and strategic sensing, he’s brutal. Then there’s Toph from 'Avatar: The Last Airbender' (I know it’s Western animation, but the character belongs in any convo about senses). Her seismic sense lets her map environments with insane fidelity by feeling vibrations through the earth; she can detect subtle shifts like a heartbeat or a furtive step. Daredevil from 'Daredevil' (comics/Netflix) and the legendary blind swordsman Zatoichi bring more human-scale, hyper-tactile and auditory mastery — Daredevil’s radar and Zatoichi’s hearing/scent make them near-superhuman in close combat. Personally, I think Fujitora rules the macro battlefield, Toph owns terrain-level perception, and Daredevil/Zatoichi are unmatched in human-scale combat nuance — each is strongest in their own domain, which is honestly what makes discussing them so fun.

Whenever I sketch a villain's life, I push hard against the urge to make their backstory a tidy excuse. Trauma can explain behavior, but it shouldn't erase agency — I like villains who made choices that hardened them rather than characters who were simply acted upon. Start by picking one vivid moment: a humiliation, a betrayal, a small kindness turned sour. Build outward from that, showing how that single point ripples through relationships, habits, and the architecture of their inner life. In practice I scatter clues into the present narrative instead of dumping exposition. A tarnished locket found on a mantel, an overheard line that hits like an ember, a ritual they perform before sleep — those little details say more than paragraphs of retrospection. Use unreliable memory and conflicting witness accounts to mess with readers; the truth can be partial, self-serving, or mythologized. Avoid two traps: making the villain sympathetic to the point of erasing culpability, and over-explaining with melodramatic origin montages. Let consequences breathe in the story, and keep some mystery. When done right, a dysfunctional backstory deepens the stakes and makes every cruel choice feel weighty — and I love it when a reveal lands and rewires everything I thought I knew.