I don't think we're off to much of a start here. Voter, you're not really pointing out a case of special pleading. You are instead committing the tu quoque version of the ad hominem. You've done nothing to actually defend God's behavior.
Still, your case is weak even if all you intended to show was hypocrisy. To begin with, we are not God. We are limited in our time and our resources. What limits does God have? We have needs and wants. What needs and wants do God have? And unlike God, no one would argue that everything that we as humans do is always right. I know that I don't do enough to help those less fortunate than myself. But I also recognize that I am, if nothing else, human. And I am therefore flawed. It shouldn't surprise anyone that I fall short. Is God flawed? Why should He fall short?
My argument fails if you can show a relevant difference, but I’ve never seen it done. The knee-jerk reaction is to say that God has greater resources and could stop all suffering, but that also is a special pleading. You presumably don’t argue that only the current richest man on earth is responsible for relieving suffering in his fellow man.
This is shockingly bad argumentation. To begin with, on theism, God is solely responsible for the existence of suffering since He is solely responsible for the existence of everything and knew that there would be suffering from the outset. Therefore, if we should start assigning responsibility to anyone for the task of relieving suffering, we should start with God. Furthermore, I think that most of us would agree that those with the means to help others have a greater responsibility to help others than those of us that don't. I don't think that most of us would claim, for example, that we should expect you and Bill Gates to give the same amount of money to charity. No matter how dedicated you are to helping others, we would expect that Bill Gates would give more because he has orders of magnitude more to give. God has infinitely more to give than that even. So what should we expect from Him?
But I suppose the better point is this. With Job, we aren't even talking about the failure of God to relieve suffering as a means to glorify Himself. We're talking about the imposition
of suffering to that end. And so I don't think this business about charity is exactly relevant. The issue isn't a failure to give something. The issue is the taking of something. And in this case, that something that He's taking isn't just material. He took lives.