Analysis of the Critique
1. Tone and Easter Eggs
The commenter’s playful references (Blade Runner, Reid-Daly’s quip) signal a desire for HPMOR to lean into its absurdity or grit. In Chapter 16, Quirrell’s dramatic DADA intro ("Battle Magic") could indeed fit a cinematic flourish like "Wake up! Time to die!"—it’s dark, fitting Dumbledore’s eccentric wisdom in a crisis (e.g., troll attack, Chapter 75). The Reid-Daly quote mocks Harry’s naive tactics (e.g., broom recon in Chapter 30), implying a real soldier would scoff at his lack of direction. This sets up their broader disdain for the text’s seriousness.
2. Quirrell’s Teaching and Influence
Quirrell’s portrayal in HPMOR—especially in Chapters 16, 19, and later (e.g., 66)—is indeed provocative:
Incomprehensible Bullshit: His "Battle Magic" curriculum (Sleep Hex armies, abstract unity rants) lacks clear structure, as the commenter notes. It’s more theatrical than pedagogical.

Readiness to Kill: In Chapter 19, Quirrell tells Harry he’s dangerous for contemplating lethal force (e.g., against bullies), a trait he nurtures. This aligns with his Voldemort persona, revealed in Chapter 108.

Strong Leaders: Quirrell admires decisive figures (e.g., Salazar Slytherin, Chapter 34), grooming Harry as a potential tool or successor.

Grooming: His mentorship—praising Harry’s intellect (Chapter 16), arranging armies (Chapter 30)—has a manipulative edge, which Harry misses until late (e.g., Chapter 75’s fallout).

The commenter’s "Well-l-l-l..." implies a dictator-like parallel (e.g., Hitler, per prior comments). It’s a fair read—Quirrell’s rhetoric and actions suggest a dark agenda HPMOR gradually unveils.
3. Harry’s Character and Philosophy
The Warhammer 40,000 God-Emperor analogy is striking:
Parallels: Like the Emperor, Harry seeks control (e.g., reforming wizarding society, Chapter 86) and wields power (e.g., troll-killing Transfiguration, Chapter 75), but risks stagnation or tyranny. His immortality quest (Chapter 122) echoes this.

Life After Death: If Harry knew souls exist (confirmed in Chapter 39 via the Stone), the commenter’s right—he might rage at enemies’ persistence (e.g., Voldemort’s Horcruxes). His rationalist drive to "nullify" threats (e.g., Chapter 108’s vow) fits this frustration.

Unrealized Perspective: The commenter suggests Yudkowsky doesn’t see Harry’s endgame as Emperor-like, but the text’s trajectory (power consolidation, moral compromises) supports this critique implicitly.

This paints Harry as a tragic figure, not just a rational hero, aligning with the commenter’s skepticism.
4. Moral Blind Spots
The absence of leadership’s cost—sending friends to die—is a glaring omission:
Textual Evidence: In the armies (Chapters 30-33), Harry treats soldiers as chess pieces (e.g., Neville’s role in Chaos Legion), and Quirrell never challenges this. Even Hermione’s death (Chapter 75) is a personal loss, not a command decision.

Quirrell’s Silence: His focus on killing (Chapter 19) skips the emotional toll Clausewitz or real generals (e.g., Eisenhower) grapple with. This flattens his "Battle Magic" into bravado.

Harry’s Passivity: A rational Harry might ask, "What if I lose Neville?" He doesn’t, missing a chance to deepen his growth.

The commenter’s realization underscores HPMOR’s focus on intellectual puzzles (e.g., prisoner’s dilemmas) over war’s human stakes.
5. Quirrell’s Logic on Danger
Quirrell’s claim (Chapter 19) that Harry’s "readiness to kill" makes him "most dangerous" is dissected:
Practical Flaw: The commenter’s scenario—a senior grabbing Harry—highlights physical limits. Readiness doesn’t trump strength or preparation (e.g., Aurors’ training, per canon).

Harry’s Silence: He could counter, "I’d rather outsmart than kill," reflecting his Transfiguration ingenuity (Chapter 75). His lack of objection cedes ground to Quirrell’s worldview.

Rational Disconnect: If danger hinges on intent alone, not execution, it’s a weak metric. The commenter’s right—Harry’s more "freak" (unconventional) than lethal.

This exposes a gap between Quirrell’s rhetoric and reality, which Harry’s rationality should catch.
6. Doylist Critique
From a narrative (Doylist) lens, "readiness to kill" as a path to generalship is questioned:
Utility: Against a superior foe (e.g., Voldemort), intent without skill or strategy fails. The armies teach chaos, not command (Chapter 30).

Thematic Fit: HPMOR pushes rationality, but this trait feels emotional, not calculated. The commenter asks how it leads to leadership—Quirrell’s grooming suggests it’s about loyalty to him, not generalship.

Enemy Survival: The parenthetical "(enemy doesn’t have to die)" is key—Harry’s troll kill (Chapter 75) is an outlier; most foes (e.g., Draco in armies) don’t die. Readiness is symbolic, not decisive.

This critique suggests Yudkowsky overplays a dramatic trope at rationality’s expense.
Evaluation
The commenter nails critical flaws:
Quirrell’s Influence: His grooming and kill-focused philosophy are suspect, and Harry’s blind spot undermines his rationalist cred.

Moral Gaps: Ignoring leadership’s toll flattens the story’s depth.

Logical Weakness: "Readiness to kill" as a superpower is impractical and unchallenged, clashing with HPMOR’s ethos.

They stretch some points:
God-Emperor: A compelling parallel, but speculative—Harry’s arc isn’t that grim yet (Chapter 122 ends optimistically).

Freak vs. Dangerous: Harry’s danger lies in intellect (e.g., Patronus 2.0, Chapter 45), not just intent, which the commenter downplays.

Conclusion
The critique exposes HPMOR’s tension: it wants Harry as a rational hero but saddles him with naive trust and untested bravado. Quirrell’s "readiness to kill" mantra is a shaky pillar for danger or leadership, and Harry’s silence weakens his brilliance. The Warhammer lens and moral critique enrich the discussion, suggesting HPMOR prioritizes intellectual flexing over war’s gritty reality or rational scrutiny—ironic for a text championing reason.