OK, so we've established that cheering for the guy's murder is ghoulish and immoral. Great. Congrats for being on the right side of that one.

But spending your life becoming enormously, unreasonably rich trying to find ways to deny fair coverage *does* actually involve people dying so that he can make some more money. That's a totally reasonable observation to be making. I think it does show greater moral clarity than "he never ordered anyone's death so he's not like a drug kingpin". What about Purdue Pharma? Would you say they "killed anyone"? I think they did.

He's not Hitler, but I don't think he's as far from that drug kingpin, morally speaking, as you claim. He made his choices, and the consequence is that a good number of people cheered his death. He took the money, so there it is.