The Deist's God is free of accusations, He is also free of criticism. Or not.

Benevolence might not be an attribute of a God in deism. The deist could argue that emotions are just logical flaws in animals.
The strong points of this argument are: Why does God have to intervene in the affairs of man?
God, a creator should not necessarily assume the title of a 'caring father'
Is God good or evil? As argued by Friedrich Nietzsche, concepts as good or evil do not exist but to a man whose argument appeals to emotions, there is only right and wrong. Right and wrong is subject to man's perception. It is mostly inclined towards ' conscience ', which is said to be an emotional evolutionary trait.

I wonder if the satirical approach to dismissing the relevance or existence of God applies in this case, can the God in deism be mocked?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QhkFcv3I7ys

LordReed, I can't remember many of those other monikers around here. I would appreciate a discussion on this, if it interests you.

HardMirror, what do you think?

I generally have no qualms with deist positions because they usually espouse no interference. Deists don't attempt to structure society around the idea of what they say their god wants.

In general I have no problems with what people want to believe but when they bring their beliefs into the public square, they should not be surprised when those beliefs are subject to a grilling.

SchmidtHammer:
LordReed, I can't remember many of those other monikers around here. I would appreciate a discussion on this, if it interests you.