I agree that any deontologist can be represented as a consequentialist, by making the utility function complicated enough. I also agree that certain very sophisticated and complicated deontologists can probably be represented as consequentialists with not-too-complex utility functions.
A consequentialist with an unbounded utility function is broken, due to pascal’s mugging-related problems. At least that’s my opinion. See Tiny Probabilities of Vast Utilities: A Problem for Longtermism? - EA Forum (effectivealtruism.org)
I agree that any deontologist can be represented as a consequentialist, by making the utility function complicated enough. I also agree that certain very sophisticated and complicated deontologists can probably be represented as consequentialists with not-too-complex utility functions.
Not sure if we are disagreeing about anything.