Having read Invincible (save for maybe the last 20 issues) and not watched the show, I wouldn't characterize Invincible (the comic) as "edgy" or "edgelord". Tonally, it actually feels like a traditional blue sky, colourful superhero comic that just happens to get extremely violent (notably, I don't even think it does that until somewhere between issues 8-11. When it drops its big reveal). Like, it feels like classic meat and potatoes Spider-Man book in structure and tone and not, say, like a Mark Millar trying to poke you in the ribs with how audacious he's being or Frank Miller's glowering muddiness or Garth Ennis' "We agree this is is a stupid genre, right?". I don't think Kirkman had some big thing to say on the genre and more just wanted to do a traditional story his way. This isn't so much a defense* as a specific definition of what I always felt the series' character was: conventional, earnest superhero storytelling punctuated by crazy violent fights. Still, I will say "fetishized" is probably fair to all versions. Anyway, I could see someone seeing it as tonal whiplash (which I think the AV Club review of this series did) but I always felt it was of a piece. Again, this could be very different in the show.
* I'm not super sure how much I would still enjoy the series on re-reading. The Dragonball-inspired fights (and Dragonball-inspired lots of things) are good but I suspect I might be less cool with its treatment of its female characters. Even at the time, I felt the strength was in the cliffhangers, which I felt the same with The Walking Dead. Like, "how much of this is actual good story telling and how much is just written to be addictively read?"