Here is what I can say with absolute certainty: you must obey the terms of the GPL for the GPL library you are distributing (and for any other GPL code in your VM, e.g., any GPL-licensed GNU or Linux components of the VM's operating system). This means that you must offer to all recipients of your VM the source code of all GPL-licensed components. You are, of course, free to decide who is a recipient (e.g., you may limit it only to customers who pay you one thousand dollars), but as soon as you make a person a recipient, you have an obligation to offer them the source code of all GPL components.
The significant question here is whether the dynamic-link relationship between your tool and the GPL library imposes a requirement that your code also be distributed under the terms of the GPL. Dynamic linking has been legally murky territory for a long time due to an absence of case law. Is dynamic linking a case of two separate copyright works that programmatically inter-operate, or is it a single combined work under copyright? I am unaware of extant case law (but if you are, please commnent below!), but the FSF is unambiguous in their opinion on the matter:
Does the GPL have different requirements for statically vs dynamically linked modules with a covered work?
No. Linking a GPL covered work statically or dynamically with other modules is making a combined work based on the GPL covered work. Thus, the terms and conditions of the GNU General Public License cover the whole combination.
If the FSF's opinion indeed holds up in court in your jurisdiction, then the copyleft provision of the GPL applies to your tool, due its combination with a GPL-licensed library. As such, you must license your tool-and-library combination under the GPL, which means you must offer the source code of your tool to everyone who receives a copy. You are not permitted to conditionally give the source to the recipient of a GPL-licensed work. Either offer them both the object and source code, or neither.