The key word in the fourth panel is “suggested.” In their workplace parlance, a boss’ suggestion is one you cannot refuse.
The idea that there is a distinction between “that” and “which” is really an example of a rule being forced on the language that isn’t consistent with actual use. “The Allusionist” podcast cites it as an example of hypercorrection. https://www.theallusionist.org/transcripts/across-the-pond
The relevant bit starts about the 16 minute mark. There is also a transcript if you’re inclined that way.
SingaporeBill: I think you mean to say “The idea which there is a distinction. . .” ;)
I think it is less that “suggested” has a different and more coercive meaning in their office lexicon and more that the definition of “lunch” is “cocktail and/or beer”.
The liquid lunch was a staple of many white collar industries like journalism (see https://www.pressgazette.co.uk/defence-lunchtime-obooze/ ), sales and advertising once. When I was hired as a sales rep for publisher Prentice Hall at age 23 in 1981 (my first proper job post university), the trade and academic sales managers offered me the job, took me for a lunchtime pint and then gave me a company car, 3-4 weeks before I was due to start, to go and find somewhere to live in my territory 150 miles away. (They gave me the car so it didn’t sit abandoned outside the office/warehouse over Xmas). By the early 90s the next generation of reps was a much more abstemious bunch, at least in the context of the mid-day working environment.
Between 1990 and 1995, my job (public servant) went from boozy lunches to reasonably dry.
The old timers still recalled when morning break was the time for the first 2 drinks.
Wow! In my old job, you did not drink, period. If you were to have a drink at lunch, at the very least, you did not return to work, and your job was in serious jeopardy. Coming to work “impaired” was a firing offense. If you were on call, you did not even drink on your own time, as there was the possibility that you could be called into work (see above).
(Runs to look up”abstemious”…)
At one place I worked, some things went on that were of concern to me and a co-worker, and “let’s go out for a pizza” was our code for “let’s go someplace and try to figure out what’s going on.” But of course it could also mean “let’s go out for a pizza.” Sometimes I would ask “Physical pizza or logical pizza?” Physical pizza = real pizza = go out to eat a pizza. Logical pizza = virtual pizza = go out anywhere, pizza or not, and discuss the situation.
Essentially, what chemgal said. The knowledge that toadyism is a workplace requirement is highly depressing and drives them to alcohol.
The woman is Mr. Pillsbury’s secretary. Although the man is an executive and higher than her in the company, he is not her superior. At least, he is not her boss, which is probably the intended sense.
Sorry, guys; I take the “highly inappropriate” interpretation of the fourth panel. He suggested they go get a drink, and she couldn’t refuse.
But we know from strip history that she can and does refuse his suggestions.
“abstemious” and “facetious” – the only two words I know of which contain all of the vowels, once only, in order. (And of course, you could include “y” by making them into “abstemiously” and “facetiously”).
Usual John: Yes, but that was before she was told otherwise in panel 2.
It’s well-established in the strip that Ms. Foxx can and does say no to Duane. Duane may make more money than she does, but she is the CEO’s secretary and has his trust, whereas Duane’s position at the company is more precarious.
When I was in college there was a story that some accounting firm when they were interested in someone they had interviewed they would take the person to lunch. If they added salt to the food without tasting it then they were hired as they were not cautious enough. (I did not interview at any place like that.)
Meryl, I’d heard the same story, but it wasn’t an accounting firm.
Comics I Don't Understand 
Working there will drive you to drink.
The key word in the fourth panel is “suggested.” In their workplace parlance, a boss’ suggestion is one you cannot refuse.
The idea that there is a distinction between “that” and “which” is really an example of a rule being forced on the language that isn’t consistent with actual use. “The Allusionist” podcast cites it as an example of hypercorrection. https://www.theallusionist.org/transcripts/across-the-pond
The relevant bit starts about the 16 minute mark. There is also a transcript if you’re inclined that way.
SingaporeBill: I think you mean to say “The idea which there is a distinction. . .” ;)
I think it is less that “suggested” has a different and more coercive meaning in their office lexicon and more that the definition of “lunch” is “cocktail and/or beer”.
The liquid lunch was a staple of many white collar industries like journalism (see https://www.pressgazette.co.uk/defence-lunchtime-obooze/ ), sales and advertising once. When I was hired as a sales rep for publisher Prentice Hall at age 23 in 1981 (my first proper job post university), the trade and academic sales managers offered me the job, took me for a lunchtime pint and then gave me a company car, 3-4 weeks before I was due to start, to go and find somewhere to live in my territory 150 miles away. (They gave me the car so it didn’t sit abandoned outside the office/warehouse over Xmas). By the early 90s the next generation of reps was a much more abstemious bunch, at least in the context of the mid-day working environment.
Between 1990 and 1995, my job (public servant) went from boozy lunches to reasonably dry.
The old timers still recalled when morning break was the time for the first 2 drinks.
Wow! In my old job, you did not drink, period. If you were to have a drink at lunch, at the very least, you did not return to work, and your job was in serious jeopardy. Coming to work “impaired” was a firing offense. If you were on call, you did not even drink on your own time, as there was the possibility that you could be called into work (see above).
(Runs to look up”abstemious”…)
At one place I worked, some things went on that were of concern to me and a co-worker, and “let’s go out for a pizza” was our code for “let’s go someplace and try to figure out what’s going on.” But of course it could also mean “let’s go out for a pizza.” Sometimes I would ask “Physical pizza or logical pizza?” Physical pizza = real pizza = go out to eat a pizza. Logical pizza = virtual pizza = go out anywhere, pizza or not, and discuss the situation.
Essentially, what chemgal said. The knowledge that toadyism is a workplace requirement is highly depressing and drives them to alcohol.
The woman is Mr. Pillsbury’s secretary. Although the man is an executive and higher than her in the company, he is not her superior. At least, he is not her boss, which is probably the intended sense.
Sorry, guys; I take the “highly inappropriate” interpretation of the fourth panel. He suggested they go get a drink, and she couldn’t refuse.
But we know from strip history that she can and does refuse his suggestions.
“abstemious” and “facetious” – the only two words I know of which contain all of the vowels, once only, in order. (And of course, you could include “y” by making them into “abstemiously” and “facetiously”).
@ Mark in Boston – “pizza club” in UK politics is a group of Brexiteer Tory MPs and ministers largely opposed to PM Theresa May’s approach to the EU. https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/brexit/7761744/michael-gove-cabinet-pizza-agreement-theresa-may-brexit/ The not only “go someplace and try to figure out what’s going on” but apparently genuinely eat pizzas there, or did once.
Usual John: Yes, but that was before she was told otherwise in panel 2.
It’s well-established in the strip that Ms. Foxx can and does say no to Duane. Duane may make more money than she does, but she is the CEO’s secretary and has his trust, whereas Duane’s position at the company is more precarious.
When I was in college there was a story that some accounting firm when they were interested in someone they had interviewed they would take the person to lunch. If they added salt to the food without tasting it then they were hired as they were not cautious enough. (I did not interview at any place like that.)
Meryl, I’d heard the same story, but it wasn’t an accounting firm.