Makes sense
-
I'd be more concerned about the flying saucer critter eyeing them down.
...or the lit stick of dynamite a few feet away from the dude's head.
Or the eyeball. Or the other thing, whatever it is.
-
I'd be more concerned about the flying saucer critter eyeing them down.
...or the lit stick of dynamite a few feet away from the dude's head.
wrote last edited by [email protected]It's a Bizarro comic. The little alien guy is always there somewhere.
Finding all the small details like that is half the fun.
-
I'd be more concerned about the flying saucer critter eyeing them down.
...or the lit stick of dynamite a few feet away from the dude's head.
I
️ finding the Bizarro treasures. There's usually something in every comic. -
I was under the impression it was just storage under-the-mattress style. No one's bringing a treasure chest to buy eggs.
This was my thought as well. You obviously aren't using a bank, and you probably dont trust enough people to keep that on your ship. Not to mention if your ship goes down and you survive, it sure would be nice to get your treasure back. Hence the maps with "tricks." Theyre only supposed to be Hints for the person know already knows where it is
-
It's a Bizarro comic. The little alien guy is always there somewhere.
Finding all the small details like that is half the fun.
Nice! This was my first one - definitely had me scouring the entire image once I started noticing the weirdness.
-
They had their own islands and cities which they could defend.
Yes, they absolutely could avoid anyone they just robbed. That's why they did it.
Honestly you still haven't even glimpsed at the articles yet, have you?
"much larger history of civilization"
Pirates are still a thing. Less so, but they are.
It was just the golden age of piracy because of just how far spread it was and how little any state could oppose them. Lots of states allowed and supported it, as per common knowledge and me now reiterating it for the second time.
Tldr, my point is that you're wrong.
The topic was why pirates would need to launder. Not that every pirate that ever existed needed to launder. Now take your fucking pathetic reading comprehension somewhere else.
-
The topic was why pirates would need to launder. Not that every pirate that ever existed needed to launder. Now take your fucking pathetic reading comprehension somewhere else.
That's rather ironic, seeing as you straight up refuse to read and keep arguing about something you clearly don't know jack shit about.
Anyone participating in piracy would be hanged in those non-supporting places which didn't accept piracy. The place which weren't the pirate havens I've now linked several times.
First, they usually didn't end up with money, but with wares more than gold. Secondly, neither of that is in anything way trackable. Thirdly, they can just go and sell it in a pirate haven and then travel in disguise to a place somewhere else to spend it. Who do you think theyre having to hide their wealth from?
You're just incredibly mad you said something you didn't think through and even though you now realise how silly it was, you can't even stop, but just keep digging yourself deeper.
Hilarious.
-
Yea pirates burying treasure is largely a myth imo
Like yeah there's documented instances, but it wasn't common practice.
Captain Kidd did claim he buried treasure, but he did it as a stalling tactic to delay his inevitable hanging. There are no confirmed cases of pirates burying their treasure.
The myth largely sprung up from the novel Treasure Island. Which birth a ton of adventure tropes.
-
That's rather ironic, seeing as you straight up refuse to read and keep arguing about something you clearly don't know jack shit about.
Anyone participating in piracy would be hanged in those non-supporting places which didn't accept piracy. The place which weren't the pirate havens I've now linked several times.
First, they usually didn't end up with money, but with wares more than gold. Secondly, neither of that is in anything way trackable. Thirdly, they can just go and sell it in a pirate haven and then travel in disguise to a place somewhere else to spend it. Who do you think theyre having to hide their wealth from?
You're just incredibly mad you said something you didn't think through and even though you now realise how silly it was, you can't even stop, but just keep digging yourself deeper.
Hilarious.
What's hilarious is you constantly arguing against a point that was never made. To think the existence of pirate cities completely removes any need to launder money is both hilarious and pathetic of you.
-
I don't think pirates really worried about laundering any booty. What for? They weren't worried about the IRS, nor would people generally have qualms about where someone's gold/silverm/wares might have come from, methinks.
Gold was absolutely taxed and controlled In those days. Just because modern taxation didn't exist, it didn't mean that people didn't ask 'hey where did you get the money from?'
There have been cases as far back as Ancient Egypt where robbers were caught because they suddenly had access to large amounts of money they wouldn't have had otherwise. I think it involved a group of people who robbed a Pharoah's tomb. It has been decades since I read about it so I could be off.
-
What's hilarious is you constantly arguing against a point that was never made. To think the existence of pirate cities completely removes any need to launder money is both hilarious and pathetic of you.
You've never explained any need for any "money laundering".
It's as if you're arguing that because roads were muddy in the 1600's, there had to have been car washing places. Equally silly.
If there was even a whiff of piracy about you, you could be hanged. So you'd probably avoid living in places that would do that to pirates. You have to launder your entire life, not just your money. And then that would mean you couldn't have your pirate life.
So no, pirates didn't "launder money." Hell, bank notes didn't even exist. Weirdly the fall of piracy coincides with the rise of large colonial powers with central banks. What a weird coincidink, huh? Except it's not. There's heavy causation, as bank notes — unlike gold or silver or wares — would be practically worthless to pirates.
However, money laundering as a concept as such is from the 1920s or thereabouts. You know how Al Capone going to prison for tax fraud was a big thing at the time? They couldn't catch him on anything, so they caught him on taxes. And specific anti-money laundering legislation didn't arrive until like the 80's,
You're just simply pushing a notion you have to historic frameworks that have absolutely nothing to do with it.
Do explain to me, what would they "launder" their "money" for, and how? Give me specifics, please. (This is rhetorical, because you're full of bullshit and those reasons don't exist you silly monkey.)
-
Gold was absolutely taxed and controlled In those days. Just because modern taxation didn't exist, it didn't mean that people didn't ask 'hey where did you get the money from?'
There have been cases as far back as Ancient Egypt where robbers were caught because they suddenly had access to large amounts of money they wouldn't have had otherwise. I think it involved a group of people who robbed a Pharoah's tomb. It has been decades since I read about it so I could be off.
Gold was absolutely taxed and controlled In those days.
By whom, exactly? The states too weak to invade and take control of pirate havens?
"hey where did you get the money from?'
"fuck off, that's where"
Uuu so challenging this "monkey laundering" in the 1700's.
Bank notes didn't practically exist. Money was actually gold or silver. Moneys laundering as a concept is from the 1920's from mafia who lived under a states rule.
I imagine that England sending letters to pirated saying "hey guys we need you to pay your taxes and also please come back to England so we can hang you for piracy" would've gotten similar responses as what the pirates over at pirate-bay in the modern world gave to a similar power, only in modern parliance.
-
Captain Kidd did claim he buried treasure, but he did it as a stalling tactic to delay his inevitable hanging. There are no confirmed cases of pirates burying their treasure.
The myth largely sprung up from the novel Treasure Island. Which birth a ton of adventure tropes.
I know of one instance. Pirate plundered a ship ruining a false flag. It was actually from a nation he was friendly with. Buried the treasurer in the hope they wouldn't find out.
-
Gold was absolutely taxed and controlled In those days.
By whom, exactly? The states too weak to invade and take control of pirate havens?
"hey where did you get the money from?'
"fuck off, that's where"
Uuu so challenging this "monkey laundering" in the 1700's.
Bank notes didn't practically exist. Money was actually gold or silver. Moneys laundering as a concept is from the 1920's from mafia who lived under a states rule.
I imagine that England sending letters to pirated saying "hey guys we need you to pay your taxes and also please come back to England so we can hang you for piracy" would've gotten similar responses as what the pirates over at pirate-bay in the modern world gave to a similar power, only in modern parliance.
By whom, exactly? The states too weak to invade and take control of pirate havens?
If they landed in a legitimate port they will ask questions. States were weaker back then, but not that weak. BTW, much gold was brought back not as bullion, but as personal jewelry, because jewelry was not taxes, but stuff like gold nuggets or gold bricks were.
Also they didn't care to tax pirates. If you were a 'real' pirate, as in someone who did not have a letter of marque, you were liable to hanged and everything taken from you. If you were a privateer you paid 10% of your 'earnings' to the crown and kept the rest. I should mention that earnings weren't just precious metals and stones, they were EVERYTHING. If you plundered a ship full of sugar cane and tobacco, the crown got 10% of that.
It does depend on your time period, if you were active in the 1640s to the 1660s, the golden age of piracy, even if you didn't have a letter of Marque, it was likely that nations did not care if you were a pirate as long as you didn't rob THEIR ships. Political tensions were super high in Europe at the time and there was a doctrine of 'no peace beyond the line' meaning if you went to the West Indies, it was a free for all. So if you were an English or French pirate and robbed only Spanish ships, the French and English didn't give a fuck and you go back to a French/English port and no one would bother you. But if you tried to do piracy in the 1690s to 1710s, you were going to get hanged. This era of piracy is when navies started to spring up and they didn't tolerate any form of piracy on the high seas at all, and the concept of no peace beyond the line ceased to exist. Many of the most famous pirates we know, like Black Beard and Calico Jack were active during this time period.
The most successful 'pure' pirate (someone who did not operate with a letter of marque) was Henry Every, and he wasn't in the Caribbean, he robbed a huge ass treasure ship belonging to the Mughal Empire in the Indian ocean and he and his crew stole a ton of treasure. The thing which is just as fascinating is that Henry absolutely got away with it. He fucking disappeared into thin air and was never found with his share of the loot. I know finding someone was harder in those days, but even back then being a fugitive was difficult, and a super high profile fugitive like him (his pirate action caused a huge diplomatic crisis between England and the Mughal Empire) would not have been allowed to stay on the run for long.
To give you an example of how that is different, Piet Hein, a Dutch pirate, also robbed a Spanish treasure ship, but due to the fact that it happened nearly 100 years prior to Henry's action, he had the backing of the Dutch state (which was at war with Spain at the time) and he was richly rewarded for it instead of being hunted.
-
By whom, exactly? The states too weak to invade and take control of pirate havens?
If they landed in a legitimate port they will ask questions. States were weaker back then, but not that weak. BTW, much gold was brought back not as bullion, but as personal jewelry, because jewelry was not taxes, but stuff like gold nuggets or gold bricks were.
Also they didn't care to tax pirates. If you were a 'real' pirate, as in someone who did not have a letter of marque, you were liable to hanged and everything taken from you. If you were a privateer you paid 10% of your 'earnings' to the crown and kept the rest. I should mention that earnings weren't just precious metals and stones, they were EVERYTHING. If you plundered a ship full of sugar cane and tobacco, the crown got 10% of that.
It does depend on your time period, if you were active in the 1640s to the 1660s, the golden age of piracy, even if you didn't have a letter of Marque, it was likely that nations did not care if you were a pirate as long as you didn't rob THEIR ships. Political tensions were super high in Europe at the time and there was a doctrine of 'no peace beyond the line' meaning if you went to the West Indies, it was a free for all. So if you were an English or French pirate and robbed only Spanish ships, the French and English didn't give a fuck and you go back to a French/English port and no one would bother you. But if you tried to do piracy in the 1690s to 1710s, you were going to get hanged. This era of piracy is when navies started to spring up and they didn't tolerate any form of piracy on the high seas at all, and the concept of no peace beyond the line ceased to exist. Many of the most famous pirates we know, like Black Beard and Calico Jack were active during this time period.
The most successful 'pure' pirate (someone who did not operate with a letter of marque) was Henry Every, and he wasn't in the Caribbean, he robbed a huge ass treasure ship belonging to the Mughal Empire in the Indian ocean and he and his crew stole a ton of treasure. The thing which is just as fascinating is that Henry absolutely got away with it. He fucking disappeared into thin air and was never found with his share of the loot. I know finding someone was harder in those days, but even back then being a fugitive was difficult, and a super high profile fugitive like him (his pirate action caused a huge diplomatic crisis between England and the Mughal Empire) would not have been allowed to stay on the run for long.
To give you an example of how that is different, Piet Hein, a Dutch pirate, also robbed a Spanish treasure ship, but due to the fact that it happened nearly 100 years prior to Henry's action, he had the backing of the Dutch state (which was at war with Spain at the time) and he was richly rewarded for it instead of being hunted.
but not that weak
Yes, they were, that's why piracy flourished.
would not have been allowed to stay on the run for long.
You severely overestimate their capabilities. First off, they couldn't reach the pirate havens. Too weak, as discussed. Secondly, unless the pirate wanted to continued with their infamy, it would be beyond trivial to change your appearance and say you have a different name.
Who's to say against it? An interpol agent with a photograph of you, demanding you are such and such? Oh, wait...
