Ooh, I hope it does go in that direction bc I want to see where the lines will start blurring. How far can a reader's leniency on Dan's "good deeds" go before one says no, that's too far? Or how much catharsis can a fictional punishment be before a reader feels more uncomfortable than okay? I mean, people do have those dark little thoughts we tend to never act out of, especially when presented with a something we perceive as a great wrong that seems to go unpunished.
For some, maybe the incel's death was too far but was still a catharsis, but for others maybe it was still in the okay zone for justified punishment as well. And to others, maybe it was too much either way.
So I have this theory, after reading a comment about this kill not being justified (which I disagreed with). I noticed the crimes of the bastards Dan punishes are getting bit less explicit or serious each time. First we got a sadistic killer, then a terrible rapist, both committed their crimes directly and completely. After that we got that journalist, who caused the death of people, but never killed anyone directly. And now we got this disgusting misogynist, who had the intention to kill and caused suffering to many women, but his actions never resulted in anyone's death.
I find all of their punishments from Dan justified, but some don't so it got me thinking. Maybe the author is doing this on purpose until we all come to the point, where we can't justify Dan's punishments and realize he is not an impartial bringer of justice, but a pretty messed up guy himself. And where we draw the line between Dan the justice man and Dan the lunatic and criminal, might tell us a lot about ourselves.
It's just a theory though