[step:Use the original implication to exclude the forbidden quadrant in the homogenized joint range]
Define the joint range cone $C \subset \mathbb{R}^2$ by
\begin{align*}
C=\{(p_1(z),p_0(z)) : z \in \mathbb{R}^{n+1}\}.
\end{align*}
By Dines' convexity theorem for two real quadratic forms, $C$ is a convex cone in $\mathbb{R}^2$ (citing a result not yet in the wiki: Dines' convexity theorem for the joint range of two quadratic forms).
We claim that
\begin{align*}
C\cap\{(a,b)\in\mathbb{R}^2:a\le 0,\ b<0\}=\varnothing.
\end{align*}
First take $z=(z_0,z')$ with $z_0\ne 0$ and set $x=z'/z_0$. If $p_1(z)\le 0$, then $z_0^2q_1(x)\le 0$, hence $q_1(x)\le 0$. By the hypothesis, $q_0(x)\ge 0$, and so
\begin{align*}
p_0(z)=z_0^2q_0(x)\ge 0.
\end{align*}
Thus no vector with $z_0\ne 0$ gives a point $(p_1(z),p_0(z))$ with first coordinate nonpositive and second coordinate negative.
It remains to exclude vectors with $z_0=0$. Suppose, to the contrary, that $z\in\mathbb{R}^{n+1}$ satisfies
\begin{align*}
p_1(z)\le 0
\end{align*}
and
\begin{align*}
p_0(z)<0.
\end{align*}
Choose the strict feasible point $\bar{x}\in\mathbb{R}^n$ from the hypothesis and define $\bar{z}=(1,\bar{x})\in\mathbb{R}^{n+1}$. Then
\begin{align*}
p_1(\bar{z})=q_1(\bar{x})<0.
\end{align*}
Since $p_0(z)<0$, there exists $\varepsilon>0$ small enough that
\begin{align*}
p_0(z)+\varepsilon p_0(\bar{z})<0.
\end{align*}
Because $C$ is a convex cone, the sum of two elements of $C$ belongs to $C$, so
\begin{align*}
(p_1(z),p_0(z))+\varepsilon(p_1(\bar{z}),p_0(\bar{z}))\in C.
\end{align*}
Its first coordinate is strictly negative and its second coordinate is strictly negative. Therefore there exists $w\in\mathbb{R}^{n+1}$ such that
\begin{align*}
p_1(w)<0
\end{align*}
and
\begin{align*}
p_0(w)<0.
\end{align*}
If $w_0\ne 0$, this contradicts the previous paragraph. If $w_0=0$, choose a sequence $(w_k)_{k\in\mathbb{N}}$ in $\mathbb{R}^{n+1}$ with nonzero first coordinate such that $w_k\to w$ in $\mathbb{R}^{n+1}$. Since $p_0$ and $p_1$ are continuous, for all sufficiently large $k$ we have $p_1(w_k)<0$ and $p_0(w_k)<0$, again contradicting the previous paragraph. Hence the claimed exclusion holds.
[/step]