Although the popular style manual Kate Turabian's A Manual for Writers (a concise version of the Chicago Manual of Style) does not directly address your specific case, the proper usage can be deduced from similar examples. When word(s) within the middle of a sentence are omitted, three ellipsis dots should be used with a preceding space (e.g., a word . . . has been omitted). If an omission is made directly before the end of the sentence, the terminal punctuation mark remains; the ellipsis comes after the punctuation mark (e.g., Is there an omission? . . .). It also shows the following example: "We are fighting for truth; . . . for freedom . . . ; and . . . for survival". It appears that the punctuation of the sentence remains intact, with the ellipsis dots merely taking the place of the missing words. I assume that the example with semicolons could be extended to commas as well, as the semicolons are mid-sentence punctuation (and are occasionally used to separate a list or series of terms). Therefore, if eliding a list of colors, "Violet, . . . Indigo, Red" is more appropriate. I believe for the series of numerals, the proper mathematical notation would be "1, 2, 3, . . . , 19, 20", with a comma before and after the ellipsis. There is an entire chapter (ch. 14) on mathematical notation (including elided lists) in the full Chicago Manual of Style, 15th ed., but unfortunately I do not have a copy available for reference. If you need a reference for mathematics in type, then I suggest you look through that chapter. (The Chicago Manual of Style is available in the reference section of most libraries.)
As Robusto points out in comments beneath the question, there is no universally acknowledged rule governing whether to include or omit a comma after a conjunction at the beginning of a sentence. Robusto reports preferring to include such commas in academic documents, but many other writers and editors would not include them.
In my experience copyediting manuscripts for book publishers (including university presses) and later for magazine publishers, I don't recall ever having encountered a house style that required adding a comma after "And," "But," or the like. To the contrary, most house styles either said nothing at all on the subject or recommended omitting such commas, presumably for the reason that Words Into Type, third edition (1984) gives at the start of its long section on comma usage:
A comma should be used only if it makes the meaning clearer or enables the reader to grasp the relation of parts more quickly. Intruded commas are worse than omitted ones, but keep in mind at all times that the primary purpose of the comma is to prevent misreading.
The argument for including a comma after an opening conjunction is not, I think, grounded in a desire to make the meaning clearer (since the meaning tends to be quite clear without the comma, as Peter Shor indicates in a comment above), but rather in a desire to demarcate with exactitude the boundaries of the parenthetical expression that follows. Why Gregg Reference Manual would insist on such precision at the beginning of a sentence but not in the middle of one is a mystery to me.
There is nothing inherently wrong with using commas to break out parenthetical phrases regardless of where they appear in a sentence: It increases the number of commas in a work while (arguably) not making the sense of the text any clearer; but it's a style decision, and style decisions—if followed consistently—don't need to be justified.
On the other hand, if you don't want to add a comma after a conjunction at the start of a sentence, I don't think that you should consider yourself to be under any obligation to the preferences of Gregg Reference Manual unless your publisher has instructed you to obey it.
Best Answer
No, you should not put a comma after an ellipsis. Use either the ellipsis by itself or the comma by itself. Wikipedia has an example of an ellipsis immediately followed by a comma, but this is abnormal in the context of writing dialogue. It would not contribute to a natural feel.
Also, you don't deserve isn't its own clause, it is you don't deserve your shield (one clause) rearranged into your shield you don't deserve. No comma. Edit: I'll let this drop, since the example lacks sufficient context to determine the form of the sentence.
I can't comment very well on the second part of the verse, since I don't know what it means or how it relates to the first part. All I can say is that assuming the second part does make sense, the following is a better option: