I’m Really Not an Unparalleled Demon

Aren't they all invincible? Why would a minion come and beep at the protagonist? It's none of your business if he's an official, but you're not an official. If you're invincible, just blow him up. He must abide by the rules and investigate the case. If he investigates his case, if you are unhappy, just go to Mr. Gu directly. If Master Gu can't do it, go pinch that King Lin's neck and let him deal with it. It's not enough to kill all the current royal family. I don't want to be the emperor, so I can push that servant up. You are invincible, so do it if you don't accept it. Beep, what are you doing? You are invincible, my friend, before the world changes. If you want the world to be capitalist, it must be capitalist. If you want the world to be socialist, it must be socialist. Are the poor uneducated? Knowledge monopoly? Kill anyone who dares! Kill until they are afraid! Come up with your own attitude, and the so-called aristocratic family will help you solve everything!

The author is still stubborn, so he took off the label of Invincible Articles, and if nothing else is changed, the results will be much better. What readers hate the most is selling sheep over others. I can do whatever I want in Invincible Articles, but at least I can kill whoever I want. And you, the protagonist in the article, can't even kill anyone you want to, so you still call it Invincible Articles. It's funny.

After reading the comments, I can only say that the author does not have any actual sense of the relationship between power and personal force, or rather. It is a mistake to think that maintaining the status quo costs more than rebuilding after destruction. If you are not satisfied with the status quo maintained. With absolute force, just go and destroy them, kill them until they don't dare to stretch their hands, and then stop naturally The simplest way to put it is that half of the originally planned 100,000 funds will be embezzled if there is no change. Then when you change it, kill the remaining people until they only dare to embezzle 10,000, and most of the problems can be easily solved. It is true that violence cannot solve all problems, but it can solve more than 90% of the problems, and the remaining 10% can be solved slowly.

At present, it seems that the problem is not invincibility or invincibility, but the lack of a main line. The male protagonist has always been pushed by events and has no goals of his own, so he feels that there is a lack of excitement. I personally thought that the author wanted to create an image that was outside the world, wandering and confused, but there was no growth, change, or positive feedback in the fifty chapters, which made it very uncomfortable to read.

The logic is a bit confusing. I want to spread my political thoughts implicitly, but I dare not say it clearly. What is right or wrong depends on your stance? Maybe it's an extremist idea, someone who wants to be political but doesn't dare to do so? For fear of losing your subscription, my suggestion is to skip the knitting position and directly write about the grudges and grievances of Jianghu, the good and evil of human nature, and politics. Good is also evil, and evil is even worse. None of them are good things.

How to put it? On the one hand, it emphasizes that the protagonist is invincible, and there are many so-called chains that restrict the protagonist. The protagonist is like a puppet, and it is difficult to break down.

It was OK more than ten years ago, but not ten years later. It's old-fashioned, not fluent, and doesn't catch people.

Invincible means invincible, an invincible warrior who cannot be beaten to death, but happens to be incapable of brutal charging and does not have a paralysis ring. Under the rule of one step per second, he has no choice but to be treated like a fool by mages and Taoist priests. If it is a legend, this divinely equipped warrior can only kill wild monsters. So it's reasonable to be complained about.

Kill it, it's a whole chapter of nonsense.

Let me share my opinions, I hope it can inspire the author. It is okay for the author to arrange such a plot, and the transformation of the protagonist is also a necessary part of the plot. However, the problem is that the author is too immersed in it, which makes the text seem redundant. Too much expository narration not only weakens the progress of the plot, but also destroys the coherence of the story. From the reader's point of view, the protagonist's pretentiousness has changed to your author's pretentiousness, and you are still coy about writing invincible articles. We are not here to read your expository essay about upper-level struggles. To read this, it is better to read political essays and professional works. If you explain this and that, who will be convinced? The author spends a lot of pen and ink on this, don't you think it's a waste of time? Or should it be simple to write this and rely on this to fill the water? Or just update the content enough, as long as the plot advances fast enough, this flaw can be covered up. For example, a plot can be presented completely at once to keep the plot coherent. Or it may stop abruptly when the update reaches its climax to highlight the key points. If your focus is on those things, just pretend I didn't say it. I wish it could be stable and complete.