First of all Billy's methods and goals are completely separate issues. The fact that Billy's ultimate goal was to kill everyone didn't implicate anything about the effectiveness of Billy's methods to eliminate Supers in the story. Before that, Billy and his methods are the ways every Super is eliminated and how the Voight-American is taken down. Brutal, sadistic violence achieved that. The fact that it then started to spin out of control is kind of a moot point, because again, you conflate methods and objectives.

And yeah, absolutely Hughie was the one we were supposed to see as the hero, but it also important to note that at that point of the story, he was much closer to that uber-macho approach to problem solving than he was in the beginning and that the other large problem, the supers and Vaughn-American, had already been stopped literally due to Billy's uber-macho psychopath approach.

The thing is Ennis's main characters are almost always presented as damaged individuals who are not supposed to be characters you wish to be. That is not at the base of the accusation of glorification. The reason I write that he glorifies such characters is that they are almost always the only people in his stories who achieve anything of value. Other characters who are not psychotic or violent may at times be shown as in a positive light, yet they never achieve anything of any worth in those stories.

I mean if we honestly have to start making asterisks about Ennis's work at different times, with the Batman story being somehow a homage to 70s/80s cop movies or how his Nick Fury was partially a satire, to explain why same themes are constantly repeating in his stories. This isn't to say that I think you or anyone can't enjoy Ennis's stories, to me in the narrow area he inhabits he is a really good comic book writer, but rather that, to me personally, a lot of these defenses I've seen posted for him seem almost dismissive to people's complaints about him and his style.