I know they’re subjected to internal laws in whatever countries they operate in, but the amount of influence over that law you hold, combined with the fact that you have total control over the mobilization of thousands upon thousands of workers, vast swathes of land which if it’s in America, you often have more autonomy over than many societies in history, and can normally get off without paying too much in taxes, net negative taxes if you’re in an industry that’s heavily subsidized, all of it adds up to a figure I can hardly conceptualize as anything but something adjacent to an autocrat.
Why is this not considered being something akin to an emperor over what you DO hold? You can say a billionaire owns something that provides services but it’s not like Rome didn’t have bathhouses and roads. If you have multiple billions of dollars, you likely have MORE ability to mobilize labor en masse to achieve your ends than most historical emperors, so why not?