I received the following response to today’s comic. I thought it deserved to be shared on a wider scale.

Georgie, I believe this is a gross oversimplification. I think that everyone of us was dealt a hand of cards that gives us certain advantages and disadvantages. Although money can decide some of the struggles we will face in life, I think it is only one element of our existance.

I also believe this scale is weighted towards Lily who is given personal merit, as opposed to Peter who is effectively double-whammied for being lazy and wealthy. I believe that people like Peter have a real cross to bear that isn’t that obvious to the everyday onlooker.

Let’s say that Peter ends up being a successful businessman. Will he get any of the credit? Probably not. People will say, “Oh, he had that job handed to him because he was rich, I had to work to get where I am.” Is this even inherently true? Maybe to an extent, he had a lot given to him, but he still has none of the credit. And if he fails, it only makes it seem worse. “There is no excuse, he had everything given to him.”

Peter’s path is also heavily controlled by his parents’ beliefs, expectations, and success. Peter, if he enters a friendly debate with his parents on things like politics, knows he is invalidated immediately because he, not having to spend a dime of his own, is naive to the ways of the world. He also has to do well, because he knows his full ride depends heavily on his ability to perform, which can be really stressful. Peter also can’t do things his parents didn’t account for on the neat little path they set for him, like studying abroad perhaps.

So in a respect, Peter has more humility than the average poor man. Peter knows he has everything, and is thankful for that. But, in acknowledging this, he surrenders all merit to the bank that pays for it, and submits to the moral punishment he receives from his less fortunate friends like Lily, seemingly in blissful naivite…