Epicurus Trilemma: Electric Boogaloo

If an omnipotent being attempts to make a creature or entity happy and safe, is it possible that that attempt could fail? 

In the event an omnipotent being did everything it could to make a creature or entity happy and safe, is it possible that that creature or entity ends up not safe and/or not happy? 

If an an entity or creature is not happy or is not safe, can we assume that an omnipotent being is not trying to make that creature happy or safe? 

Potential objection: creatures can choose to not be happy, and an omnipotent being might allow for creatures to choose to be unhappy, even if that entity is doing everything possible other than overriding their free will in order to make that creature or entity happy.

Counter: this leaves the safety aspect untouched. Why should a child ever be in danger of a tornado if an omnipotent being who is trying to keep them safe exists?

Counter: why should any particular action necessarily lead to unhappiness? There seems to be no necessary causal reaction between, say, engaging in same sex sexual activity, and unhappiness. One could imagine a world where this was not the case, and so for it to be the case in any universe would seem deliberate. Why would a being trying to optimize happiness make a universe where so many things lead to unhappiness?

Unless: you don't think same sex sexual activity causes unhappiness in a natural way, built into our reality’s physics, but rather that God deliberate and supernaturally inflicts suffering on those who participate in such behavior? But then, it would seem hard to maintain the idea then that God is always acting to maintain our happiness or safety.

Conclusion: I can think of no reason why there should be danger and unhappiness for humans if an omnipotent being is trying to keep us safe and happy. Unless somehow you think a greater good (good for who?) is preserved by the possibility of danger and unhappiness. But I have heard no argument to suggest that children dying from tornadoes is necessary for a greater good, or why we would live in a universe where so much leads to unhappiness. Even if we wanted to maintain a universe where deliberately standing in fire causes suffering, this doesn't go far to explain most of the Christian religion’s insistence on suffering as the consequences for many behaviors.

Note: there are some who seem to suggest that ungodliness or spiritually rejecting God necessarily results in unhappiness or pain. However it seems trivially true to say that anyone, no matter how much they reject God, who does heroin is happy for at least as long as the high lasts, so we have established that it is not logically impossible for someone to reject God and be happy for at least a time. So, if an atheist suffers strictly due to their atheism that would seem to be a quality of reality that God decided on.

End of the day: the world has a lot of suffering in it. If God is trying to prevent or alleviate suffering, then the Christian has to somehow argue that this is the best an omnipotent being could do (unlikely) OR that God's efforts to alleviate any more suffering than he already is would somehow cost us something we wouldn't be willing to give up OR that God has motivations other than our happiness and well-being that he is prioritizing.