There are different levels of scummy that are considered socially acceptable, and some marketing doesn’t rely on tricking you.

Think of the different ads you’ve seen:

“Our furniture is locally made by unionized workers. Everything is made using young trees that we grow ourselves, or reclaimed wood”

Is different than:

“On Friday, our pasta is buy one get one free”

Is very different than:

“Hey gay, it’s June. You know what that means? It’s time for us to change our logo to include a rainbow and maybe even have an ad (in some countries) with two woman who might be married if you read between the lines. Maybe you can ignore that we donate money to political groups that are anti-LGBT, or that we fire queer people at a higher rate than straight people.”

Or

“Hey kids, I’m a clown! Your parents don’t love you if they don’t buy Clown brand bleach. Kids without Clown brand bleach are poor, unlovable losers, and they’ll never have any friends. Now in comes in cherry, and blue raspberry!”

People generally look down on pretending to be a minority for financial gain.

Queerbaiting: Pretending or hinting that you may be LGBT+, in order to trick people into liking you more, or to pay more attention to you or your work. Sometimes this is a way to try to get LGBT+ fans, sometimes it’s trying to get straight people who think LGBT+ people/acts are sexy.

Arc, as in story arc of a tv show or book series: So, it’s for a set period of time, and then they move on, not really acknowledging again.

Pop acts have done this a lot.

The shirt is using an aggressive tone, which is inferring the person wearing is someone who would complain about “those damn libs and their pronouns.”

But even with the aggressive tone, the shirt is letting us know that which pronouns he uses.

The butterfly, or an overweight jungle cat?

You should be showing your source.

I gave it a fair chance a few times, and I am not a fan. I was told by friends that I needed to be high to like it, which has confirmed in my head that it’s not for me. Things should be able to stand up on their own.

C*ash Slap is on the poster, which is probably supposed to be a reference to Crash Bash.

If you don’t remember Crash Bash, that makes sense, it wasn’t great.

Sorry, I thought the person who was assumed dead was the father, not the character receiving the shares. If the person receiving the shares was the one assumed dead, it makes way more sense as to why it was less believable. It’s still possible but, unless things were set-up in a way that already assumed that everyone would be dead, except for that one guy, who is still totally alive but is going to be missing for a while, then it’s highly unlikely.
Then again, this is a universe where magic exists, so a wizard did it.

Depending on how long MC was presumed dead, and if there were any issues with either his estate, or of his father, the shares could be held by the personal representative of either estate for quite some time. If there was any less than 7 years between when his father died, and when he came back, then it’s completely reasonable that he would be entitled to those shares. The longer it is after that seven years, the less likely it is that he would have the shares. The shares could’ve also been held by another entity, like a family trust or holding company. And as long as a trustee, or a controlling interest in the holding company, was still alive and willing, they could give him back the shares.

But: He wouldn’t have an officer or director position in the main company if he was presumed dead. Directors need to be re-appointed every year, and depending on the set-up of the corporation, you sometimes need to be a director in order to be an officer, or the officers need to be reappointed every year. A position like “chairman” was likely appointed to someone else rather quickly after the presumed death. Then again, it might also have the wildest bylaws ever written, likely by a wizard.

It probably was just bad writing for the sake of a forced story line, but the board can (generally) vote out the chair, and the shares going from a deceased person to another entity is called transmission. Transmissions do generally require the directors to sign a resolution or two though, and if they voted him out as the chair, then they likely would do what they could to prevent the transfer of the shares.

And even if they booted him as chair of the board, it likely wouldn’t have much of a financial effect.

Honestly, it’s possible, but I’ve never seen the show, and I don’t know if they break down the corporate structure.

Owning a majority of the stocks in a corporation, doesn’t automatically mean you have any real power.
Having the majority of shares, even if they are voting shares, doesn’t mean you are part of the board of directors. And if the shares that MC held were retractable and redeemable, even if they are voting shares, then the board can force the shareholder to redeem (aka sell) them back to the corporation, often at a pre-set price.

“But, the voting shareholders decide who’s on the board, and he had the majority of the shares!” I heard you say. Again, does he actually have voting shares, or just the majority of the shares issued?
Do we know what constitutes a quorum of the shareholders according to the bylaws of the corporation? AKA if he has 51% of the shares, but they need persons holding at least 60% of the voting shares in order to hold a vote, can he get enough shareholders together to hold a vote to change the directors before the directors vote that need needs to redeem his shares?

Was he completely forced to sell/redeem his shares, or was his officer role just removed? (aka, he’s no longer the President, the Secretary-Treasurer, or whatever). Shareholders are a step removed from choosing who the Officers are. Generally, Shareholders choose the Directors, the Directors choose the officers, and the Officers are the ones who issue the shares (even though they are often compelled to sign the share certificates by the Directors, the bylaws, or other resolutions).
So if he owns the majority of the shares, and was an officer, then he could very easily be removed as an officer, assuming that there wasn’t a stipulation in his original appointment. Again, I would need to see the articles, the bylaws, any Unanimous Shareholder Agreements, resolutions, and other agreements.

Also, everything I wrote might not be valid in your jurisdiction. Don’t take the late-night ramblings of anyone online as legal advice.

That’s 8 keystrokes, nice!

The law, in basically everything.

Some places give you a whole week to vote, and the polls are open 12 hours a day. So if you something happens and your plans are ruined, you have ample time to still make it to the polls.

They edited the formatting of their comment, so they do look the same now.

I just use the normal Lemmy web experience on desktop Firefox.

If the width of the window is made quite narrow, like on a phone, they will look the same. At full size, or in landscape, they won’t.

The formatting is a little off. At the end of a line, before you hit enter, leave 2 spaces.

It’s also called a “rap à fromage” in french (true).

Almost: râpe à fromage

I wouldn’t say that most things are bots. People often just repost things without looking at the place they post, or what the rules of that place are.

If you sort by new, the last time it was posted in !maliciouscompliance@lemmy.world was only 2 posts ago.