I didn't use the example as literal evidence, so I don't really want to get into the semantics of it. An omniscient god knows all desires, and thus can act on them even without those desires being acted upon. In any framework where the god is omniscient, action and intent will be blurred.

That gets into Buddhism and forgoing all earthly wants and desires and I don't think that's what it was originally intended to mean, but taken literally it could.

That gets into earthly wants from a human's point of view, but an omniscient can see intent as clearly as an action. Plus, even from a Buddhist pov, pretending would not be equated to internalization, even if to an outside (human) observer it would lead to identical actions.

I understand God would frown on someone wanting to sell their soul to a devil to get their wish, but if God was answering prayers I wouldn't have to

A god acting directly on prayer would fall under testable criteria. Thus this is directly forbidable under Abrahamic faiths (and some others), in that an "competing" entity would be proof of the entity.

but neither seem to be real, or work to me.

This is where a lot of atheist thought within those who grow up theist originates.