Actually, that's an argument already addressed by the gospels, whos authors obviously had to make the same case to some people who didn't see why this Jesus guy has to have his superpowers from God. Now bear in mind that I'm not saying it's
intelligently addressed. On the contrary, it's one of the dumbest rationalizations in all the Bible, including both OT and NT. But unfortunately it's the kind of stupid stuff that makes sense IF you want to believe.
The argument is in Mark 3:22-30. And, of course, copied and a little embellished by Matthew (chapter 12) and Luke (chapter 11), because, hey, that's why we call them synoptics

Anyway, let's look at Mark, because basically it's the same argument and the most concise form of it. Furthermore, it's 3 different arguments, so I'll split them into different paragraphs so it's obvious where each idea starts and ends.
22. And the teachers of the law who came down from Jerusalem said, “He is possessed by Beelzebubc! By the prince of demons he is driving out demons.”
23.So Jesus called them and spoke to them in parables: “How can Satan drive out Satan?
24.If a kingdom is divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand. 25If a house is divided against itself, that house cannot stand.
26.And if Satan opposes himself and is divided, he cannot stand; his end has come.
27.In fact, no one can enter a strong man’s house and carry off his possessions unless he first ties up the strong man. Then he can rob his house.
28. I tell you the truth, all the sins and blasphemies of men will be forgiven them.
29. But whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven; he is guilty of an eternal sin.”
30. He said this because they were saying, “He has an evil spirit.”
Verse 22 just sets up the accusation. It's actually a standard literary device, the skeptic, the fourth basic character in a fiction, after the protagonist, antagonst and contagonist. The skeptic is the character in whose mouth you put the objections that the readers may have, so you can have your characters address it in character. So basically here the problem is obvious even to the author of the very first gospel, and he does that to basically address his readers, rather than it having anything to do with any actual pharisees and priests. (Who wouldn't have been impressed by that stupid argument anyway.) And verse 30 basically reiterates what the setup was.
Verses 23 to 26 are the first argument: basically, OMG, if I were working for Satan when I drive out demons, then Satan would be working against himself, and thus would weaken himself, and he wouldn't do that!!!111eleventeen
It's stupid argument because it's circular logic, a.k.a., begging the question. The answer already assumes that Jesus in doing so was working against Satan. (And thus, if Satan was powering him, then you'd have Satan working against himself.) But that is was actually what was being questioned, rather than being a fact to base the answer on. In reality, Satan could just put up a show to established the credentials of his henchman, rather than it being any actual opposition to himself or working against himself.
Verse 27 is just an argument by assertion that he couldn't take away Satan's stuff unless he first overpowers Satan. It's stupid because, again, it can be a show. E.g., while, yes, maybe you would defend your house in a genuine robbery, if it's just a BS show, for example to cash in an insurance, then you may well just allow the "thief" to take away the object without any resistance. Again, effectively it begs the question. It assumes as a given that Jesus is 'taking away' something that Satan wouldn't allow him to, if he weren't overpowered, whereas the question was precisely whether Satan is the one allowing him to do that.
And verses 28 and 29 are such a delicious case of
Argumentum Ad Baculum, literally meaning "argument from the cudgel". I.e., argument by threats. At that point Jesus gives up even trying to rationalize it, and just threatens that God will never forgive them if they continue to question him. He just packs it as an apparently more general "don't question the Holy Spirit!!!" but it's a pretty thinly veiled disguise.
As an aside, that creates a much bigger problem than what Mark probably realized. In his avoiding just saying "don't question me", he sets it up as an unforgivable offense to deny anything's being done by the Holy Spirit. Basically Jesus and God will forgive you for murder, rape, and generally anything, but if some random act X was done by/through the holy spirit and you don't believe it -- even if, as the pharisees here, you have no reason to believe it was the holy spirit in the first place -- then you can't be forgiven. Ever.
But if you think about it, it's not even clear wth the Holy Spirit is, nor what it does. The Bible is awfully vague and unclear about it. Anything happening around you could be caused by the Holy Spirit, and how would you know it? Any tall tale you hear could be some miracle caused by that Holy Spirit. I mean, nobody explained what it does or what it doesn't do.
Heck, even making fun of anything the Pope says could land you in Hell, because he claims to be inspired by the Holy Spirit. He doesn't actually back into that infallible position often. In fact most Popes never did. But how would you know if some dumb thing he says without invoking infallibility, doesn't come from the Holy Spirit too? You could be denying the Holy Spirit a couple of times before you're done listening to a single speech of his.
Or the New Testament is taken by most denominations to have been at least inspired by the Holy Spirit. And apparently the apostles were inspired by it too. So any verse that you don't take seriously could be effectively denying its being from the Holy Spirit. But... the damned thing is full of contradictions, and some opinions of Paul (or a few others) which were backwards crap even by the standard of 1st century CE. Do you know if you're not denying the Holy Spirit when you as little as pick the opinion of apostle X as right, and the conflicting opinion of apostle Y as bogus? I mean, you could be calling bogus something that's from the Holy Spirit, you know?
Or did you ever think that those from some other congregation are interpreting the bible wrong and are full of it? Did you know that most have as doctrine that it's the Holy Spirit that guides believers how to interpret the scriptures? What if their interpretation is correct and yours is wrong? Well, then you just denied that theirs is done through the Holy Spirit, and you'll never be forgiven.
In fact, by sheer virtue of there being thousands of denominations, at least 99% of them must be wrong about
something. But if the right one is indeed through the Holy Spirit, then the other 99% of the denominations are denying that, and ascribing it to some deluded preacher's folly instead. Yep, they'll never be forgiven, sayeth Jesus.
Now mind you, I don't believe in that stuff, but I'm pointing out the unfortunate implications of it, if it were real. Jesus is setting something that is a minefield of damnation and virtually impossible to avoid, or be sure you avoided.