Right it was what he actually did.
I think you need to reassess why it would be necessary to point him out to be a liar directly in this instance when it was done indirectly. As well as being stated directly later on when teaching others.
I've heard enough debate about each of the temptations to know that it happened that way for a reason. I think you drawing out that it was true that he had the power to give those things to him is quite a claim. Someone doesn't need to really be able to offer us something for us to be tempted into accepting.
I don't believe
@Magenta is claiming that it didn't happen, merely challenging your assertion based off what did occur. I gather that since it was stated later his views on the enemy that doesn't mean he (the enemy) was telling the truth here and making that claim opens up a potential quagmire.
A loose claim could be made that he was telling the truth from a ben kenobi "...from a certain point of view" but that again opens up potential pitfalls.
Even the read of the NASB Mt 4:7 could be construed this way while the KJV does not present this vagary. No, I'm not a KJV onlyist btw, just that in certain passages it is important to check other translations.
I say all that because I've read these temptations many different ways in many times in my life and each time I learn something different as my own faith is refined. Even thinking about the stones into bread went MUCH further this time so I do at least appreciate the revisitation. I can't go deep into it at present, I'm just throwing this out there because your conditional statement is not within defined boundaries. If you care to start a thread and define those boundaries, perhaps more could be said.