“Allow me to introduce you to Jack, a friend of mine. He owns the property that you trespass onto every morning on your way to shortcut to the donut shop. He thinks you’re kind of a scumbag but, don’t worry, he really likes you and has forgiven you and wants to be part of your life.”
Hmmm.
I read it more like this:
“Allow me to introduce you to Jack; he’s the King, and a friend of mine. You need to know that he owns the property that you’ve been trespassing on every morning on your way to shortcut to the donut shop. The penalty for trespassing on the King’s land is a bazillion dollars. You didn’t know this, but the Sheriff had a warrant out for you, but Jack thinks you’re cool, so yesterday while you were hiking across his property, he forgave your debt. If you apologize for trespassing on his land, and promise not to anymore, he’s extending an open invitation for you to come over to the palace anytime, hang out, and enjoy primo donuts made by the Royal Baker, and partake of the finest coffee in the Kingdom. What’s more, Jack’s read your resume, and has a killer job for you in his Kingdom that he’d like to set you up with; it’s RIGHT up your alley.”
So, the guy has his debt forgiven and doesn’t even need to meet Jack. I think my analogy is better but I do like your treatment of it.
It reminds me of the Lewis & Clark expedition where they were introducing themselves as representatives of the rightful owners of the properties the injuns were living on. It required DEMONSTRATION of extra power. And sometimes it really didn’t go over too well.
But either way, I gather that the answer to my question is NO, you would NOT want to meet Jack in my original analogy. So my point is well made.