Pretty much every single image from every camera benefits from some level of post-processing (XS70, maybe not, but Pola negs, definitely). Isn't "post-processing" really a digital term anyway? Processing is intrinsic to all film camera work. Whether it's done by Chuck Kelton or PhotoMat, it's still processing, still happening after the fact of shooting the picture. Nothing happening inside any camera I've ever used, and nothing delivered by the — admittedly remarkable — range of amazing software presets available today, comes close to the nuanced accuracy of working a file in a custom fashion, both in the darkroom and especially on the computer. Sean (and David Paul Carr, in his adamant posts) are both right on; the advancements of the RAW conversion programs are definitely getting us closer to the accuracy and appeal of contact sheets. Historically, my photographer friends who've claimed "not doing much" after the fact of taking a picture have generally created prints that haven't done much for me.
I agree with those that say there are many frustrations or annoyances when using the GX100 as a social camera. Some, such as flash exposure compensation, may be correctible, and some, such as the coversion hood — which I use with a neutral B+W filter instead of a lens cap — blocking the flash, can not. Focus delay and RAW write time result in tons of missed moments, too. But those erratic social photography situations benefit tremendously from shooting RAW and using ... post-processing. : ) So maybe the GX100's positives outweigh its annoyances, even as a social camera.
Finally, to Mitch's original point, as a GX100 user with about two grand worth of other gear purchases in line ahead of a GRD2, I'm glad to hear that my camera is even vaguely in contention against the new flagship model.
Cheers.