Artist: @gryzlock_comics
this post was submitted on 24 Nov 2024
1163 points (100.0% liked)
Comic Strips
15460 readers
1058 users here now
Comic Strips is a community for those who love comic stories.
The rules are simple:
- The post can be a single image, an image gallery, or a link to a specific comic hosted on another site (the author's website, for instance).
- The comic must be a complete story.
- If it is an external link, it must be to a specific story, not to the root of the site.
- You may post comics from others or your own.
- If you are posting a comic of your own, a maximum of one per week is allowed (I know, your comics are great, but this rule helps avoid spam).
- The comic can be in any language, but if it's not in English, OP must include an English translation in the post's 'body' field (note: you don't need to select a specific language when posting a comic).
- Politeness.
- Adult content is not allowed. This community aims to be fun for people of all ages.
Web of links
- !linuxmemes@lemmy.world: "I use Arch btw"
- !memes@lemmy.world: memes (you don't say!)
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Can't shake the feeling that swapping panels 1 and 3 would make more sense.
Clockwise from bottom left maybe
load more comments
(3 replies)
No, no, we can’t be mean to the rich, that will upset them 🥺
Yes, kill them, by taxing them out of existence.
This would be ideal but I'm skeptical that it's actually possible. Bribes are cheaper than taxes, so I think they'd likely just prevent the taxes from happening by greasing the correct palms.
Well yeah, that’s exactly what’s happened for at least the past 50 years. In 1968 corporations were paying 53% of their profits in taxes, and billionaires were paying 94% around that time! Btw, if you’re making billions, paying 94% still leaves you richer than most…
Contrast that to today, where the system is so obviously broken during a time when Amazon is paying less in total taxes than a fry cook at McDonald’s.
It would need to be done with actually no loopholes, and meaningful enforcement of consequences for those who would try to cheat (perhaps the guillotine).
one big issue is everyone goes "you can't tax stocks!" and then billionaires take a loan against the stocks with the unrealized gains as collateral. So we'd need to start classifying a loan as a realized gain of the collateral against this, with an exception for mortgages on primary domiciles, maybe also a "first million dollars are exempt," calculated on the full debt of the borrower, not per loan. I can't imagine anyone taking out more than $1M in debt against a properly they don't live in is not the rich we need to be taxing.
load more comments
(2 replies)
load more comments
(3 replies)
Don't they already just avoid paying taxes by not having a salary and just using bank loans or something? So they have no actual money in the bank
load more comments
(4 replies)
I support this idea. Invite most of the world's nations' leaders, too. I think the Met-gala attendees and G20 summit attendees might be a good starting point all-in-all. Then seize the means of production etc., you know how it goes.
load more comments
(6 replies)
Every healthy society requires a robust guillotine maintenance capability, ideally across all competencies.
Whoever made this needs help, murder is not good
Slaying dragons is self defense and defense of others, not murder.
Please don't slander dragons by associating them with the filthy rich human cretins
I kind of agree with this type of objection. But note that the instrument of death is a guillotine. That hearkens back to a time of radical societal change, the French Revolution.
Additionally guillotines were seen as a more humane method of execution than the hangings and manual beheading of pre-Enlightenment France.
load more comments
(1 replies)
There's an air of truth to that in that, I want them to be tortured first. Don't build the wood pyres so high at the start. Make sure the fire slowly creeps up to their vital organs. We should also flash scenes of violence and poverty caused by their actions into their retinas as they boil into greedy little pools of charred carbon.
To answer the question you're thinking, like a baby, every night. Zero issues.
The classic lemmy response:
"its not about the murder it's symbolic of revolution"
"um it's satire"
"murder is good sometimes"
all in reply to one comment
load more comments
(2 replies)
load more comments
(3 replies)
I'm for giving them a choice. The guillotine or we take away their money and make them work a minimum pay position in one of their factories for the rest of their lives. I'm pretty sure they would take the guillotine after a week.
This whole "kill the rich" thing is counterproductive and needs to stop. Advocating for murder has never been cool.
I respectfully disagree.
The ultra-rich aren't shy about killing you or your loved ones if it makes them an extra million. There are exceptions, but they're definitely not the rule.
Tit for tat. We're absolutely in a class war and the owner class has been winning for three or four consecutive decades. The inequality in society was lower during the French revolution than it is now. Hell, the pay Scrooge gave out in the old tale was more than minimum wage is today adjusted for inflation.
I'm not saying we need violence, but I am saying we need the threat of violence for these kind of people to do their part. No one needs a billion dollars, let alone a trillion.
I also respectfully disagree. Tit for tat, taken to its logical conclusion, eradicates all life on the planet; if that's your goal, fine, you can make that argument, but that's ultimately a separate discussion. There were literal slaves and serfs around the time of the French Revolution---now you could make an argument that "wage slaves" or whatever exist in the first world, but that is pure abstraction when compared to the absolute widespread human suffering in France during the late 1700s. You would have to be entirely disconnected from reality to think that people, en masse, have it worse in first world countries than they did in France during the 1700s; that's a "log off" moment, for sure. If you want to expand the scope to the world at large, then, yeah, there is some fucked up stuff going on, and people (millionaires, billionaires, &c. &c.) do hoard wealth, but murdering them is not the solution; that won't even do anything to their accumulated wealth, as most of it is tied up in corporate assets; instead, harsh regulation needs to be enacted on the system that allows these people to accumulate obscene amounts of wealth. But instead, we have these very surface level takes that are just like "kill the billionaires", which solves nothing and actually makes our side look insane, which hurts our cause—frankly, its stupid. Now, if you want to alter the claim to "the threat of violence is needed," then I would be more inclined to agree; however, individually murdering certain billionaires is not productive; I don't know about you, but I don't want to match whatever vitriolic bullshit eye for an eye sentiment that these billionaires might have, and maybe that's an idealistic take and naive, but it feels right.
have it worse in first world countries than they did in France during the 1700s
In absolute terms? Definitely not. The lowliest "unskilled" worker today has vastly more amenities than even a 17th century nobleman could even dream of.
In relative terms, however? The ultra-rich robbed you, me and every single other person on this planet. And to this you may retort that you do not care about wealth and are content with what you have. I would applaud such an answer, but it would be besides the point. What we've been systematically robbed of, is our time. Years, decades that could be spent enjoying your lives with our loved ones, instead spent slaving away at a desk or in a factory only to make the few who have everything even more. That, to me, is absolutely unforgivable, especially since I've long since past my physical prime and am still being robbed of this time against my will.
Now, if you want to alter the claim to “the threat of violence is needed,” then I would be more inclined to agree; however, individually murdering certain billionaires is not productive;
Again, I disagree. There are about ~2700 billionaires on earth out of ~8 billion people. Killing half of them and having that wealth redistributed would solve more problems than it would create. But if I do that, I'm thinking like said billionaires.
Which is the only way to fight them. If you try the moral and legal route, you won't stand a chance because you'll be fighting within systems and rulesets they have created to give themselves every (unfair) benefit.
Sometimes the disgruntled worker who shanks the boss is the hero we need.
load more comments
(3 replies)
Despite the downvotes, you are correct.
It’s asinine to even consider that a billionaire doesn’t have a will, let alone how awful it is to threaten a life.
They’d just be dealing with a younger, more entitled billionaire, who now wants to get revenge on the people that murdered their parent or benefactor. See Lachlan Murdoch, Charles Koch, any of the Waltons, etc. for example.
You're being empathic towards people who have no empathy for you.
How is recognizing the financial failsafes of billionaires empathetic? I’m employing logic.
Did you miss the entire point of my comment because I also condemned taking a life?
People are killed daily not so indirectly by billionaires. Overpriced medicine, Military industry, Unhealthy products, Monopolization of water and other resources and land, poisoning ground water with industrial waste, unsafe work conditions, the list is endless.
There is almost no billionaire that isnt responsible for someones death and in a moral world they would be in prison. So morals are already completely out of the window.
load more comments
(1 replies)
If you were a slave and I was your master, would killing me be murder?
...yes? But, as all people and legal systems agree, there are times when murder is legal and endorsed.
Such as in wartime. And this is war, but most people are far too blind to see this.
load more comments
(11 replies)
I prefer "eat the rich" as a metaphor for seizing their assets, not a literal endorsement of cannibalism. I'm actually surprised how many people literally mean "kill the rich". Are you guys actual sociopaths?
I’m actually surprised (not really) how many people can come this close to getting it, but still be so desperate to follow the rules they've set (E: where they can directly and indirectly kill millions a year for profit with impunity, but we're not allowed to even say nasty things about them, never mind plan to fight back against them, without being considered dangerous terrorists), that you manage to convince yourself billionaires will just freely and willingly give over those assets and all of the power that comes with them one day once we've asked nicely enough.. 🙄
load more comments
(3 replies)
Nah, some of us just see that they buy the elections so that we can't vote for change. And they buy the judges so we can't sue for change. And they buy the media so we can't speak for change. So now we're exploring the extremely distasteful option because all other avenues for change have been blocked
load more comments
(5 replies)
load more comments
(2 replies)
Billionaires use violence all the time to get what they want. Just because they hide behind layers of abstraction that they've set up, doesn't mean they aren't using violence.
Killing billionaires is both immoral and won't solve the problem. We need to kill the capitalist system that allows people to become billionaires.
Do you think billionaires operate in a moral fashion? That their journey was one paved to the top by the ethical treatment of others?
Perhaps we need a new morality because I find that operating inside of prescribed moral bounds is shooting yourself in the foot when making this particular kind of argument.
You operate morally, they use every dirty trick in the book, including killing you.
Just because some of them indirectly kill people doesn't make it moral to kill them. Maybe if it actually would make the world better, you could have a utilitarian argument for it, but as long as you just kill individual billionaires and not creating a new socialist system they'll just be replaced by new billionaires. As I said, regardless of whether it's moral to kill them, it won't help.
All of them indirectly kill people. It's impossible to be a billionaire and a moral person, as a moral person would spend that wealth to improve the lives of others. You can say that "oh but this billionaire runs a charity!", but how much of their own wealth do they give to it? Would a moral billionaire rely on the money of others to make change in the world? Would they still be a billionaire if they truly wanted change?
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(5 replies)
It will absolutely solve the problem,.
People dont want to die > People stop doing things that make others want to kill them > Success
It might have many unintended negative and positive consequences but you wont have any more billionaires very quickly if people literally killed anyone as soon as they amassed more than 1 billion dollars.
It would basically result in a voluntary 100% tax of anything over 1 billion because they dont want to die.
Sadly it will never happen because too many people would die in the process of getting there by the hands of people easily influenced by the billionaires money. (i.e. Police, Private Military, etc) But just a few martyrs would go a long way already and USAmericans have lots of guns.
All of this ofcourse only In Minecraft TM
load more comments
(15 replies)
And billionaires are going to, what, just let us kill the system they run and are the primary beneficiaries of? Get your tongue out of the taint and look at the dying planet you're on that they're making.
The problem is that the billionaires perpetuate the system that supports them, and they effectively have all the power.
And hoarding money that would provide housing, food, and medicine while people are dying or barely living paycheck to paycheck for the lack of those things isn't immoral? Lick the boot harder. They might give you a fucking dîme.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Hey, it doesn't all have to be work, work, work. Some fun is in order too.
load more comments
(11 replies)
Don't tease me like this.
You don't need a mechanized execution machine to kill three people. You need it to kill the crowd of people.
And historically that's what it was used for. It was used BY the rich AGAINST the poor.
It was pretty much just one of the options used for death penalty from what I understand. Then there's the revolution bit but otherwise it was a state execution method used as late as 1977.
load more comments
(1 replies)