Dumbledore suggests a plausible explanation for this when he says “If my opponent had been Lucius, perhaps.” Suggests that Lucius is not a rational agent in the sense that he will make negative expected value moves for the sake of vengeance. Voldemort, however, is a rational agent in that sense.
Though I’m not sure Voldemort “blinked,” exactly. Voldemort probably didn’t care if the families of Death Eaters were killed in retaliation for things done to family members of the Order of the Phoenix. Instead, he made the following calculation: (1) I can afford to tell Lucius I will torture him to death (and maybe kill his baby boy) if he does anything stupid in retaliation for Narcissa’s death and (2) but if I go on killing family members of my opponents, my Death Eaters may rebel to protect their families, Dark Mark or no.
Be careful when describing negative-expected-value vengeance as irrational. “I will precommit to be the kind of person who takes vengeance, even after it’s too late for that to have positive expected value” is almost just a sub-case of “I one-box”.
Hence the ”...in the sense… …in that sense...” qualifiers. If you can suggest a better term, I might switch to using it, otherwise next time I’ll wave my arms even harder to show I’m tabooing my words.
It’s interesting in part because Harry is right that the behavior is unusual. Historically, the group that (1) is led by a strong leader who encourages personality cults, (2) doesn’t believe in the rule of law, and (3) resorts to violence at the slightest excuse is not the group that unilaterally ends dynamics like hostage taking and hostage killing.
It’s interesting in part because Harry is right that the behavior is unusual. Historically, the group that (1) is led by a strong leader who encourages personality cults, (2) doesn’t believe in the rule of law, and (3) resorts to violence at the slightest excuse is not the group that unilaterally ends dynamics like hostage taking and hostage killing.
They’re the only group that can unilaterally end it since the other side wasn’t doing those things to begin with.
As I understand the historical dynamic, there is a conflict and the status quo is that dependents are safe. One side (call them Blue) escalates by attacking dependents, breaking the status quo. The other side (call them Green) might not have chosen to break the prior status quo, but once it is broken, they decide to start attacking dependents. Green might even escalate further.
Historically, these types of conflicts seldom return to the prior status quo. Most frequently, a new (bloodier) status quo is reached, or one side wins and ends the conflict. Occasionally, Green does not escalate, or decides that the new status quo is unacceptable and unilaterally deescalates (which doesn’t always successfully return to the old status quo). What essentially never happens is Blue escalates, Green escalates, Blue unilaterally deescalates, old status quo returns.
In short, I notice I am confused by Dumbledore’s story of the safety of dependents at various times during the last war.
What essentially never happens is Blue escalates, Green escalates, Blue unilaterally deescalates, old status quo returns.
Just to make sure I understand, consider the following hypothetical account: Sam and I are having a nonviolent argument. I get furious and punch Sam. Sam punches me back. I apologize for having turned this into a violent interaction and promise not to do that anymore. Sam agrees not to do it anymore either. We return to our nonviolent argument.
Is that an example of the sort of situation you’re describing, which you claim essentially never happens?
The historical assertion is in the context of group political conflict involving violence.
Apocryphally, the Mafia had a rule that they didn’t target families. Assuming this was true even in conflicts between families (and I don’t know this to be actually true), I’m saying that the family (Blue) that first broke that norm was not likely to be the family that unilaterally returns to the “don’t kill dependents” rule. Particularly if a lot of the unity of the Blue family is based on the strong personality of Blue’s leader.
(Mostly, I’m thinking of the Cold-War era internal conflicts between proxies of the United States and the USSR, especially in Latin America and Africa i.e. the Sandinistas. I’m not saying every conflict of that type escalated in the way I’m describing, just that the escalator basically never deescalated while the conflict continued).
I don’t agree with your inferences about Voldemort’s intentions.
First, I tend to think that Lucius was in fact Imperioused, so his will to vengeance was not a concern. And the undesirability of an all out war from Dumbledore’s side was obvious—Dumbledore’s side had the numbers. In a Total War of attrition, Voldemort was bound to lose, as Quirrell spelled out in his speech.
His goal is a political one. He has the Great Leader view of politics, and wants all of Britain resolved to follow the Great Leader. How to achieve that? Attack magical Britain with a ruthless enemy, to make them more ruthless in kind, and more ready to follow a ruthless Great Leader. Then create his own Ruthless Leader to fill that position. Who better to fill that role than the one who defeats the first Dark Lord? Twice? And has been prophesied as his enemy? And then he uploads into Harry when Harry supposedly defeats him again.
Dumbledore got his power by defeating Grindelwald. Harrymort will get his power by defeating Voldemort.
If Lucius really was imperiused, why does his son think he sided with Voldemort deliberately?
“You’re right, it’s fair, I can’t complain,” Harry said instead. “So what about He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named? Not as bad as he was made out to be?”
Draco looked bitter, at that. “So you think it’s all just making Father’s side look good and Dumbledore’s side look bad, and that I believe it all myself just because Father told me.”
“It’s a possibility I’m considering,” Harry said evenly.
Draco’s voice was low and intense. “They knew. My father knew, his friends knew. They knew the Dark Lord was evil. But he was the only chance anyone had against Dumbledore! The only wizard anywhere who was powerful enough to fight him! Some of the other Death Eaters were truly evil too, like Bellatrix Black—Father isn’t like that—but Father and his friends had to do it, Harry, they had to, Dumbledore was taking over everything, the Dark Lord was the only hope anyone had left!”
I grant that it’s a good point. But that story sounds like just the kind of political justification the Death Eaters would tell their children. Whatever power Dumbledore has, has he really been that despotic? Particularly, in comparison to Voldemort?
Draco isn’t in a position to know first hand. He must have been just barely born when Narcissa was killed.
I often interpret on a narrative basis as much as a “factual” basis. I think Malfoy is being portrayed sympathetically, and I don’t think the “save us from Dumbledore” story holds much water. If the story had been that “Dumbledore is destroying the wizarding race by promoting Mudbloods”, then that would have been a credible ideology for a sympathetic Malfoy—one who was actually for something positive.
Also, I find Lucius’s story moderately credible
“The Dark Lord could hardly have begun recruiting among pureblood
families without the support of House Malfoy. I demurred, and
he simply made sure of me. His own Death Eaters did not know it until
afterward, hence the false Mark I bear; though since I did not truly
consent, it does not bind me. Some of the Death Eaters still believe I
was foremost among their number, and for the peace of this nation I let
them believe it, to keep them controlled. But I was not such a fool as to
support that ill-fated adventurer of my own choice—”
And since no one believes it anyway, why would he tell it to the Longbottoms, who certainly won’t believe it, unless it were true?
I expect at some point that the non-binding nature of his dark mark becomes a plot point.
“My son is my heart,” said the senior Malfoy, “the last worthwhile
thing I have left in this world, and this I say to you in a spirit of friendship:
if he were to come to harm, I would give my life over to vengeance.
But so long as my son does not come to harm, I wish you the best of luck
in your endeavors. And as you have asked nothing more of me, I will
ask nothing more of you.”
This seems like an earnest speech. That he would speak to Voldemort “in the spirit of friendship”, and expect that to mean something to Voldemort, is another interesting bit of info that seems incongruous to the usual Dark Lord narrative.
There are all sorts of incongruities in the onstage actions of Voldemort and Malfoy, and the stories of what happened offstage. I’m leaning toward taking what Malfoy says here as the truth.
But that story sounds like just the kind of political justification the Death Eaters would tell their children.
Exactly. But in your theory, Lucius isn’t a Death Eater, he’s an Imperius victim. So why would he do everything he could to raise his son to want to grow up to be a Death Eater?
And since no one believes it anyway, why would he tell it to the Longbottoms, who certainly won’t believe it, unless it were true?
Literally the very next sentence was
“Ignore him,” Madam Longbottom said, the instruction addressed to Harry as well as Neville. “He must spend the rest of his life pretending, for fear of your testimony under Veritaseum.”
And I agree that it’s incongruous for Lucius to speak to Voldemort “in the spirit of friendship”, I just think it’s more incongruous with the Imperius narrative.
So why would he do everything he could to raise his son to want to grow up to be a Death Eater?
He wants him to grow up to be the leader of the Purebloods, which exactly the same thing as leader of the Death Eaters.
“Ignore him,” Madam Longbottom said, the instruction addressed to Harry as well as Neville. “He must spend the rest of his life pretending, for fear of your testimony under Veritaseum.”
And how would that constitute evidence that he was not a willing Death Eater if everyone believes he is faking? Certainly he should never affirmatively say he was a willing Death Eater, but this little speech that no one believes amounts to evidence that he wasn’t a Death Eater to who? The speech does him absolutely no good.
In fact, I’d say the speech only harms him. The Longbottoms of the world won’t believe him, but those who sympathized with the Death Eaters, much of his natural power base, would likely be annoyed at the disavowal, even if they didn’t believe it either.
When a schemer says something that does him absolutely no good, a reasonable interpretation is that it is true.
And I agree that it’s incongruous for Lucius to speak to Voldemort “in the spirit of friendship”, I just think it’s more incongruous with the Imperius narrative.
As pointed out, he needed Lucius to draw Purebloods. First he asked. When Lucius declined, he spelled him. He forced compliance. Not so friendly, but the least abusive path that achieved his goal. That might count as friendly with a Flawless Instrument of Death.
I expect we get the backstory on Lucius filled in some day. Although I’m wondering if EY has made a major change in the plot. Seems like a lot of work went into the Draco character, but he seems like a soap opera character who hit it big in the movies, and was quickly written off the show.
The “in the spirit of friendship” thing makes no sense if Lucius was imperioused. It’s incongruous with cliche villainy, but I think it makes sense in context, as a way of saying “I do not bear a grudge against you for leading me into that disastrous war, but I will not be your follower anymore” (because a friend is not a follower). It’s almost a subtle insult.
And Lucius is a bit sympathetic, but he’s not THAT sympathetic. It’s pretty clear that he’s a power-hungry bigot. “Dumbledore is destroying the wizarding race by promoting Mudbloods” is probably closer to his real motivation for joining Voldemort, but “save us from Dumbledore” is a better message to broadcast publicly, since it has a chance of swaying non-blood purists.
This may, in fact, be partly a matter of what Draco chose to emphasize when talking to Harry. At one point, he thinks to himself that fear of the magic going away (because of those damn mudbloods!) is the reason people become Death Eaters, but he doesn’t say that to Harry, presumably because he knew Harry wouldn’t find that convincing.
The “in the spirit of friendship” thing makes no sense if Lucius was imperioused.
A person without context would find Harry’s continued friendship with Draco after Draco tortured him unfathomable, and yet it was true. Dumbledore announced to Harry that he would be a well kept prisoner in Hogwarts. That too, requires context to appreciate. A great many things that Dumbledore has done require a lot of context for justification.
We don’t have the context of Malfoy’s and Voldemort’s relationship in the same way, and the friendship comment is hard to reconcile absent that context.
Harry was clear that he prefers a scientific civilization over a magical one, but I think he could respect someone who wanted to preserve a magical civilization if it was threatened with destruction.
I think we just don’t have enough of the back story to make definitive conclusions; our priors are slightly differently and we come up with different conclusion. I’m not the confident in my conclusions. I’m less confident in yours.
But I disagree with your last paragraph. Had Draco given the “preserve magic from the mudblood menace!” defense of the Death Eaters, Harry had fairly good reasons to think they were wrong about that, so it just makes them look murderously insane. But the “Dumbledore killed my mother” line actually made Harry stop and think for a second.
And even if Harry might have sympathized, Draco didn’t know that.
That’s maybe the rational reaction, but it’s not necessarily how Harry would react. He fantasized about guillotining blood purists, remember?
I’d also reiterate what we know about Lucius’ characterization. He has a deluded view of the world (blood-purism), and he reacts to evidence against that view (the experiment performed by Harry and Draco, which Lucius learned about when Draco got veritaserum’d) by shouting lies! He also has put a great deal of effort into maintaining his power in the wizarding world, and also into grooming his son for a similar role.
In other words, he’s a power-hungry bigot. Exactly the sort of person who would follow Voldemort out of hated for mudbloods and then spin other justifications for public consumption. Also, I get the impression that very few people believe Lucius was imperious’d, and he tells the story not so that others will believe it, but for the sake of plausible deniability
But maybe our priors are just different, as you said.
“I’d also reiterate what we know about Lucius’ characterization. He has a deluded view of the world (blood-purism), and he reacts to evidence against that view (the experiment performed by Harry and Draco, which Lucius learned about when Draco got veritaserum’d) by shouting lies! -- But maybe our priors are just different, as you said.”
Consider Lucius’s, and Draco’s, priors. Namely, they do not actually have the priors to explain why the result of their experiment means what Harry says it means—not independent of Muggles, anyway, and possibly not independent of Harry. Without replicating all the experiments (or, at least a significant number) on different color peas or whatever, to arrive at a basic understanding of genetics (and an explanation for awkward questions like “why doesn’t skin color or height work that way? who says that, or something else entirely, isn’t a better model for magic?), the simpler explanation (to Lucius—and, honestly, to Draco, divorced of his complex motivations for wanting to stay in the Bayesian Conspiracy) is that Harry examined the data in advance and made up a theory to fit the numbers to what he wanted to convince Draco of.
P.S. Unless Veritaserum in HPMOR works similarly to how truth serum works in (of all things) The Hitchhiker’s Guide To The Galaxy, we can’t conclusively assume that Draco necessarily told Lucius any particular fact. What line of questioning leads to Lucius finding out about the experiment?
And since no one believes it anyway, why would he tell it to the Longbottoms, who certainly won’t believe it, unless it were true?
A good question to ask. Might he not be telling it for the benefit of Harrymort? I still don’t understand why he would do this, but at least Malfoy has a track record of saying confusing things to Harry. It could mean “I am no longer your follower” or “You need my support” or “I am the one in charge of your Death Eaters now, and don’t forget it” or even just “In case you don’t know, this is my official position at the moment.”
But even after Narcissa died, I don’t think Voldemort was facing a Total War against a united Magical Britain. It was the Death Eaters vs. the Order of the Phoenix, and what evidence we has indicates that the Order was losing, even when led by a more ruthless Dumbledore.
That’s what’s so puzzling here. This version of Voldemort isn’t stupid, but it still looks like he screwed up.
Dumbledore suggests a plausible explanation for this when he says “If my opponent had been Lucius, perhaps.” Suggests that Lucius is not a rational agent in the sense that he will make negative expected value moves for the sake of vengeance. Voldemort, however, is a rational agent in that sense.
Though I’m not sure Voldemort “blinked,” exactly. Voldemort probably didn’t care if the families of Death Eaters were killed in retaliation for things done to family members of the Order of the Phoenix. Instead, he made the following calculation: (1) I can afford to tell Lucius I will torture him to death (and maybe kill his baby boy) if he does anything stupid in retaliation for Narcissa’s death and (2) but if I go on killing family members of my opponents, my Death Eaters may rebel to protect their families, Dark Mark or no.
Be careful when describing negative-expected-value vengeance as irrational. “I will precommit to be the kind of person who takes vengeance, even after it’s too late for that to have positive expected value” is almost just a sub-case of “I one-box”.
Hence the ”...in the sense… …in that sense...” qualifiers. If you can suggest a better term, I might switch to using it, otherwise next time I’ll wave my arms even harder to show I’m tabooing my words.
It’s interesting in part because Harry is right that the behavior is unusual. Historically, the group that (1) is led by a strong leader who encourages personality cults, (2) doesn’t believe in the rule of law, and (3) resorts to violence at the slightest excuse is not the group that unilaterally ends dynamics like hostage taking and hostage killing.
They’re the only group that can unilaterally end it since the other side wasn’t doing those things to begin with.
As I understand the historical dynamic, there is a conflict and the status quo is that dependents are safe. One side (call them Blue) escalates by attacking dependents, breaking the status quo. The other side (call them Green) might not have chosen to break the prior status quo, but once it is broken, they decide to start attacking dependents. Green might even escalate further.
Historically, these types of conflicts seldom return to the prior status quo. Most frequently, a new (bloodier) status quo is reached, or one side wins and ends the conflict. Occasionally, Green does not escalate, or decides that the new status quo is unacceptable and unilaterally deescalates (which doesn’t always successfully return to the old status quo). What essentially never happens is Blue escalates, Green escalates, Blue unilaterally deescalates, old status quo returns.
In short, I notice I am confused by Dumbledore’s story of the safety of dependents at various times during the last war.
Just to make sure I understand, consider the following hypothetical account: Sam and I are having a nonviolent argument. I get furious and punch Sam. Sam punches me back. I apologize for having turned this into a violent interaction and promise not to do that anymore. Sam agrees not to do it anymore either. We return to our nonviolent argument.
Is that an example of the sort of situation you’re describing, which you claim essentially never happens?
If not, can you clarify what excludes it?
The historical assertion is in the context of group political conflict involving violence.
Apocryphally, the Mafia had a rule that they didn’t target families. Assuming this was true even in conflicts between families (and I don’t know this to be actually true), I’m saying that the family (Blue) that first broke that norm was not likely to be the family that unilaterally returns to the “don’t kill dependents” rule. Particularly if a lot of the unity of the Blue family is based on the strong personality of Blue’s leader.
(Mostly, I’m thinking of the Cold-War era internal conflicts between proxies of the United States and the USSR, especially in Latin America and Africa i.e. the Sandinistas. I’m not saying every conflict of that type escalated in the way I’m describing, just that the escalator basically never deescalated while the conflict continued).
Ah, gotcha. Cool, that makes sense… thanks for clarifying.
I don’t agree with your inferences about Voldemort’s intentions.
First, I tend to think that Lucius was in fact Imperioused, so his will to vengeance was not a concern. And the undesirability of an all out war from Dumbledore’s side was obvious—Dumbledore’s side had the numbers. In a Total War of attrition, Voldemort was bound to lose, as Quirrell spelled out in his speech.
His goal is a political one. He has the Great Leader view of politics, and wants all of Britain resolved to follow the Great Leader. How to achieve that? Attack magical Britain with a ruthless enemy, to make them more ruthless in kind, and more ready to follow a ruthless Great Leader. Then create his own Ruthless Leader to fill that position. Who better to fill that role than the one who defeats the first Dark Lord? Twice? And has been prophesied as his enemy? And then he uploads into Harry when Harry supposedly defeats him again.
Dumbledore got his power by defeating Grindelwald. Harrymort will get his power by defeating Voldemort.
If Lucius really was imperiused, why does his son think he sided with Voldemort deliberately?
Consistency bias?
I grant that it’s a good point. But that story sounds like just the kind of political justification the Death Eaters would tell their children. Whatever power Dumbledore has, has he really been that despotic? Particularly, in comparison to Voldemort?
Draco isn’t in a position to know first hand. He must have been just barely born when Narcissa was killed.
I often interpret on a narrative basis as much as a “factual” basis. I think Malfoy is being portrayed sympathetically, and I don’t think the “save us from Dumbledore” story holds much water. If the story had been that “Dumbledore is destroying the wizarding race by promoting Mudbloods”, then that would have been a credible ideology for a sympathetic Malfoy—one who was actually for something positive.
Also, I find Lucius’s story moderately credible
And since no one believes it anyway, why would he tell it to the Longbottoms, who certainly won’t believe it, unless it were true?
I expect at some point that the non-binding nature of his dark mark becomes a plot point.
This seems like an earnest speech. That he would speak to Voldemort “in the spirit of friendship”, and expect that to mean something to Voldemort, is another interesting bit of info that seems incongruous to the usual Dark Lord narrative.
There are all sorts of incongruities in the onstage actions of Voldemort and Malfoy, and the stories of what happened offstage. I’m leaning toward taking what Malfoy says here as the truth.
Exactly. But in your theory, Lucius isn’t a Death Eater, he’s an Imperius victim. So why would he do everything he could to raise his son to want to grow up to be a Death Eater?
Literally the very next sentence was
And I agree that it’s incongruous for Lucius to speak to Voldemort “in the spirit of friendship”, I just think it’s more incongruous with the Imperius narrative.
He wants him to grow up to be the leader of the Purebloods, which exactly the same thing as leader of the Death Eaters.
And how would that constitute evidence that he was not a willing Death Eater if everyone believes he is faking? Certainly he should never affirmatively say he was a willing Death Eater, but this little speech that no one believes amounts to evidence that he wasn’t a Death Eater to who? The speech does him absolutely no good.
In fact, I’d say the speech only harms him. The Longbottoms of the world won’t believe him, but those who sympathized with the Death Eaters, much of his natural power base, would likely be annoyed at the disavowal, even if they didn’t believe it either.
When a schemer says something that does him absolutely no good, a reasonable interpretation is that it is true.
As pointed out, he needed Lucius to draw Purebloods. First he asked. When Lucius declined, he spelled him. He forced compliance. Not so friendly, but the least abusive path that achieved his goal. That might count as friendly with a Flawless Instrument of Death.
I expect we get the backstory on Lucius filled in some day. Although I’m wondering if EY has made a major change in the plot. Seems like a lot of work went into the Draco character, but he seems like a soap opera character who hit it big in the movies, and was quickly written off the show.
The “in the spirit of friendship” thing makes no sense if Lucius was imperioused. It’s incongruous with cliche villainy, but I think it makes sense in context, as a way of saying “I do not bear a grudge against you for leading me into that disastrous war, but I will not be your follower anymore” (because a friend is not a follower). It’s almost a subtle insult.
And Lucius is a bit sympathetic, but he’s not THAT sympathetic. It’s pretty clear that he’s a power-hungry bigot. “Dumbledore is destroying the wizarding race by promoting Mudbloods” is probably closer to his real motivation for joining Voldemort, but “save us from Dumbledore” is a better message to broadcast publicly, since it has a chance of swaying non-blood purists.
This may, in fact, be partly a matter of what Draco chose to emphasize when talking to Harry. At one point, he thinks to himself that fear of the magic going away (because of those damn mudbloods!) is the reason people become Death Eaters, but he doesn’t say that to Harry, presumably because he knew Harry wouldn’t find that convincing.
A person without context would find Harry’s continued friendship with Draco after Draco tortured him unfathomable, and yet it was true. Dumbledore announced to Harry that he would be a well kept prisoner in Hogwarts. That too, requires context to appreciate. A great many things that Dumbledore has done require a lot of context for justification.
We don’t have the context of Malfoy’s and Voldemort’s relationship in the same way, and the friendship comment is hard to reconcile absent that context.
Harry was clear that he prefers a scientific civilization over a magical one, but I think he could respect someone who wanted to preserve a magical civilization if it was threatened with destruction.
I think we just don’t have enough of the back story to make definitive conclusions; our priors are slightly differently and we come up with different conclusion. I’m not the confident in my conclusions. I’m less confident in yours.
Fair point about context.
But I disagree with your last paragraph. Had Draco given the “preserve magic from the mudblood menace!” defense of the Death Eaters, Harry had fairly good reasons to think they were wrong about that, so it just makes them look murderously insane. But the “Dumbledore killed my mother” line actually made Harry stop and think for a second.
And even if Harry might have sympathized, Draco didn’t know that.
And I disagree with your disagreement, sir!
No, I think it just makes them look wrong about a factual matter.
That’s maybe the rational reaction, but it’s not necessarily how Harry would react. He fantasized about guillotining blood purists, remember?
I’d also reiterate what we know about Lucius’ characterization. He has a deluded view of the world (blood-purism), and he reacts to evidence against that view (the experiment performed by Harry and Draco, which Lucius learned about when Draco got veritaserum’d) by shouting lies! He also has put a great deal of effort into maintaining his power in the wizarding world, and also into grooming his son for a similar role.
In other words, he’s a power-hungry bigot. Exactly the sort of person who would follow Voldemort out of hated for mudbloods and then spin other justifications for public consumption. Also, I get the impression that very few people believe Lucius was imperious’d, and he tells the story not so that others will believe it, but for the sake of plausible deniability
But maybe our priors are just different, as you said.
“I’d also reiterate what we know about Lucius’ characterization. He has a deluded view of the world (blood-purism), and he reacts to evidence against that view (the experiment performed by Harry and Draco, which Lucius learned about when Draco got veritaserum’d) by shouting lies! -- But maybe our priors are just different, as you said.”
Consider Lucius’s, and Draco’s, priors. Namely, they do not actually have the priors to explain why the result of their experiment means what Harry says it means—not independent of Muggles, anyway, and possibly not independent of Harry. Without replicating all the experiments (or, at least a significant number) on different color peas or whatever, to arrive at a basic understanding of genetics (and an explanation for awkward questions like “why doesn’t skin color or height work that way? who says that, or something else entirely, isn’t a better model for magic?), the simpler explanation (to Lucius—and, honestly, to Draco, divorced of his complex motivations for wanting to stay in the Bayesian Conspiracy) is that Harry examined the data in advance and made up a theory to fit the numbers to what he wanted to convince Draco of.
P.S. Unless Veritaserum in HPMOR works similarly to how truth serum works in (of all things) The Hitchhiker’s Guide To The Galaxy, we can’t conclusively assume that Draco necessarily told Lucius any particular fact. What line of questioning leads to Lucius finding out about the experiment?
A good question to ask. Might he not be telling it for the benefit of Harrymort? I still don’t understand why he would do this, but at least Malfoy has a track record of saying confusing things to Harry. It could mean “I am no longer your follower” or “You need my support” or “I am the one in charge of your Death Eaters now, and don’t forget it” or even just “In case you don’t know, this is my official position at the moment.”
But even after Narcissa died, I don’t think Voldemort was facing a Total War against a united Magical Britain. It was the Death Eaters vs. the Order of the Phoenix, and what evidence we has indicates that the Order was losing, even when led by a more ruthless Dumbledore.
That’s what’s so puzzling here. This version of Voldemort isn’t stupid, but it still looks like he screwed up.
It’s possible he was simply too intelligent—trying to lose without appearing to try to lose, but still too brilliant to be defeated.