The problems with Pascal's wager are good to keep in mind when trying to reason about hypothetical deities. Mostly, the lesson here is that when you're considering what types of gods may exist, there are a lot of possibilities. Any time you try to break the set of all possible gods down into simple categories, be careful and double-check your assumptions, because you could easily have forgotten something major.
For example, Pascal's Wager doesn't really consider the set of hypothetical gods who are violently offended by blind faith, but these gods are no less possible than the ones it does consider.
One doesn't generally quote something they disagree with as support for something because something they agree with can be found in the criticisms of that which they quoted.
As you aren't the OP, you can't answer the intended relevance. I do not think his reasons would match your rationalization of it. I agree with you, but doubt the OP does.
For example, Pascal's Wager doesn't really consider the set of hypothetical gods who are violently offended by blind faith, but these gods are no less possible than the ones it does consider.