Obviously Chinese companies are ultimately under the control of the Chinese government (and I suppose all companies are subject to governments, but being under an autocratic government without checks and balances is more problematic).
My point was the GP comment is being extremely misleading. Not only was Epic already successful well before the investment, but I think there's plenty of more clear ways to refer to an investment from Tencent than how they stated it. Even if it's your opinion that Tencent and the government are the same organization (and not just subject to them), it would be better to add a few extra words to say so.
IMO a non-controlling stock interest from a Chinese company actually seems a lot less problematic from a leverage perspective than doing business in China itself. Sure they could threaten to sell their non-controlling share to another investor, but I don't see how that would cause a real problem for Epic.