Poll: V or I?

[Ionathus]

The whole point of the scene is that Vaarsuvius was lying to themself about the resons why they took the deal in the first place.
V claimed they only took the deal to save their family but the fact that they didn't end it after said family was safe is proff enough that it wasn't true.
The Archfiends offered V another way out of their predicament (yes it wouldn't have worked but V thought it would have and that's what mattered) and V refused it because it involved forsaking their pride. V had spent their entire marriage ore concerned about their own search for power than their spouse and children's well-being. Even during the battle, they were more concerned with taking revenge on the black dragon for humiliating them in their mage-duel (up to bringing them back from the dead and comitting genocide to flex their new magic-muscles) than the effects on their infant children.

Quite frankly, I'm surprised this is in question in the first place.

(Emphasis mine) Yes, this exactly! Add my voice to the "Was this really ever up for debate?" column.

Nobody's really pointed this out explicitly, but it seems like some commenters are weighing this as an isolated situation and not as the culmination of an entire marriage full of neglect and obsession with the arcane. It is very possible for Vaarsuvius's decision (to hold onto the power even after the ABD was dead) to be objectively the best choice to help the Order and the Azurites and ultimately contribute to saving the world, while still also happening to fit V's desire for ultimate arcane power. Maybe if a different elf were married to Inkyrius and did the same thing, they wouldn't react so strongly because they didn't immediately (and accurately) assume that "this is what you have always really wanted. More than you ever wanted me."

I don't think this is correct. If V only accepted the deal to gain more power and not to save their family, why did they then immediately go save their family? It seems to me that V had two goals (save their family and gain power), and chose the deal rather than the alternative method the IFCC proposed because the deal allowed them to accomplish both of their goals while the alternative method only allowed them to accomplish one of their goals.

They didn't just accept the deal because it gave them two things instead of one: they accepted the deal because otherwise they "would have to admit that your magic had failed you yet again."

Vaarsuvius didn't just want to save their family. They wanted to be the one who did it. They wanted to be vindicated in their decision to leave in the first place (see V's reasoning on the first panel here). They wanted the power fantasy. V was, essentially, acting like a mall ninja who fantasizes about getting some real-world practical value out of all the chintzy knives and swords they've sunk their money into.

That is why I'm confused. I get that the server needs their ''client'' to identify themselves, but no apparent reason why should they provoke them into lethal attacks.

It's entirely possible that the Drawmij guy wasn't even trying to provoke a fight. He might've known about V's tendency to boast of their arcane power, and was hoping for V to bellow out "Fool! I am no mere warlock! I am the powerful wizard Vaarsuvius and you will not disres--" "Served." "*Ribbit* and witnessed"

To my understanding, you just have to identify yourself and take the paper. Or at least, in the joke tropey version found on tv shows.