I think that ultimately there can be no substantial argument made against the type of Icon in question. We can poke fun at it for being distasteful and tacky etc. but such responses are, as Anastasios has pointed out, influenced by our various predispositions that are shaped by our cultural, social, and various other contexts.
Let me try and propose a new perspective on this. Let us reflect for a moment on the Orthodox conception of Icons as "windows to heaven". Can we posit an interpretation of the purpose of the flashing effect which could properly relate to this theological perspective of the icon--a purpose with more meaning than one merely intended to make the icon "catchy" or "cool"? I would argue that we can: The icon was evidently designed in such a way so as to give the viewer the impression that they are being actively and presently blessed by the Saint of the icon (according to the manner in which the flashing effect animates his hand in the sign of the cross) in spite of his physical absence to do so before their very eyes. I guess the intention of the designer was to reinforce the idea that though His Eminence has departed from this world, he is now part of the Heavenly Church which is One with the earthly Church; he thus remains part of the Church, communing with Her, worshipping with Her, actively blessing Her congregation, absolving her congregation, interceding on behalf of her congregation etc.
That said, I nevertheless personally find it tacky too upon reflection, though I don't think I thought much of it when I first saw it in person upon my visit to His Holiness Pope St. Kyrillos' burial site in Alexandria. My main point is that there is certainly no objective basis for deeming it irreverent, nor is there any reasonable basis for its being compared to the "Buddy Jesus" graphic, which as Anastasios noted, was quite obviously intended to be silly.