With the born and money = winning points that's debatable. Someone with Mark Cuban money can do anything I could ever want to for my life's win condition but generally easier and faster. Of course there is some niches and unbuyable win's as I'm about to touch on below but generally money can help.

I don't think it's fair to compare a game life's win conditions to our world where moral, social and political influences play so much more heavily into what we might find as "winning" where as in a game things are generally more objectified into categories of winning as I stated before. Life inherently has more things that aren't buy-able due to things like the 3 listed above. While your game stresses those a bit more it will imho never live up to a fraction of the pull of it's IRL counterparts.

It's also not fair to take real life jobs and compare them to game jobs when your own predictions show that most political jobs won't take more than an hour of time a day. If that. If the president as you stated only had to work > 1 hour on political events and made that much money for it then I would consider him winning. He get's enough money to literally buy my entire family for > 1 hour of work which lives him 15 (8 hours of sleep) to focus on himself or making even more money. Not only that but he can assert that much power and influence over such a short time period. I also think that the time period, mixed with the revealed game mechanics and unseen power of our deviant player base may counter act the above but that is even more reason why the 2 aren't comparable. They have completely different stipulations and % chance to lose what they have.

While I haven't played dungeon defenders, if it is a tower defense game I can assume that if you could during the building phase acquire such an advantage that your were unlikely to ever lose it than you would indeed be winning and I don't think it is predictable to say "they won't" without using something like a story arc or a weather effect like a tornado to shake up their defenses.

I don't know if your genre comparison is fair either because that implies the game isn't connected and nothing matters to the other. It doesn't matter if I am winning in Civ VI to an RPG player because I don't affect him. Now if I could play Civ VI for an hour and use what I got in Civ VI to outmatch that RPG player in his own element in almost every way than yes, that is kinda winning using a civilization game.

NOTE: I don't think that it is full on P2W but it can be if you play your cards right which is why I referred to it as "Conditional P2W". Also, while I think that some of the games revealed mechanics naturally combat P2W such as deviant being a 15% goal of the playerbase (aka ~1/10 people may try to take your "win" away and stick you with the "pay" part) but I don't think some of those points were necessarily relatable to the situation.