Edit: Adam, if you could take a look at the stuff I'm planning on publishing for Pathfinder, I'd appreciate the eye of someone who knows the system.
I know jack-all about comic books, so I can't be of much help in that regard except to caution you to be very, very careful about publishing anything that even looks like it might skirt the line near copyright infringement. There are people who seriously make a living now doing nothing but suing people who post/copy/adapt stuff that they made up years ago.
That said, PF seems to be very anti-base classes except for random "hybrids" used to cover up the fact that mutliclassing in 3.0/3.5/PF doesn't work, and never did, and still doesn't. Tightly-themed classes seem to all be made into lame archetypes now, but I suppose there will always be a market for well-made prestige classes.
I'm sure you're already aware that the trick to appeal to the fanbase is to disguise mechanics at all costs and focus on "flavor" instead -- don't say "this works like [SRD ability X]" when you could instead insert two paragraphs of fluff that kind of hints around what the effects might be, assuming the DM is willing to concede them. Showing the mechanics the way you're doing here is a good way to balance them for actual play, but make sure you hide them in the final product, because most PF players don't want to look too closely at what's under the hood.
At a quick perusal only, the power levels look good to me, but the people here can probably give better feedback on that. Be prepared for the fact that PF players will yell ZOMG OVERPOWERED! at anything that's even close to balanced with a core rules bard, much less a full caster.
Minor editorial: "it's" means "it is." The possessive is "its."
