So the work wasn’t actually destroyed, and you were able to recover it. So all the people pointing out how implausible that part of your pitch was were right, and you were in fact just lying.
Edit: updated in the top text now!
This is ultimately a very weak pitching strategy. The first thing you convey to your potential users is insecurity--an insecurity that people won't choose your product over Git. And it's hard to want to buy something from someone that isn't secure enough about their product to pitch the product first, and answer questions/make comparisons after, as a form of clarification.
Alternatively, instead of doing a comparison to Git, you could start with a list of "have you experienced these Git issues? <list of problems>. Here's how Diversion improves on Git in this regard." In this case you're actually solving people's problems, rather than looking like you're grasping at straws to complain about Git and justify an alternative.
FWIW, I personally have 0 interest in a cloud-first version control. I like the cloud as a form of backup and syncing with team members, but I ultimately want a version control that works as well offline as it does online, and prioritizes the local experience.
The fact that they don't seem to fully understand working of Git (not on the level of Git developers, just the level of Git administrators/users) does not inspire trust in their competence to create a Git alternative.