Let's not forget that the muskrat is in a totally different situation, however. He has PLENTY o' money to pay off the loansharks. He's enshittifying the birdsite just for funsies.
I still argue that it's performance art: he's providing an object lesson to people about why you shouldn't let important things get purchased and run by billionaires and he spent $44B to show how much he meant it.
And a bunch of people *still* haven't gotten the point.
@stevendbrewer @Unixbigot You may be right, but I don't think he's self-aware enough to be doing it deliberately. I think it's just play money to him and he's throwing a tantrum instead of a normal midlife crisis. ($44Bn was more than his total worth prior to 2019. Past $1Bn no amount of money makes any significant difference to your lifestyle: there's nothing it can buy that you can't lease for less anyway, and it won't save you from dying in the end.)
You may well be right. If it *is* a performance, he's not broken character yet.
OK. I'm being somewhat tongue-in-cheek. But I still think that's the lesson that we should take away from the experience.
@stevendbrewer @Unixbigot Money can buy lots of things (and some things aren't for sale at any price). The takeaway I'm getting most clearly from Dilbert Stark (and the Tangerine Shitgibbon) is that it buys freedom from consequences; and some people react to this by demonstrating that they never had any self-restraint or ethical sensibilities whatsoever.