Whose deontology?

Yours. The statement "When you are violently coercing people into some kind of behavior, one of those is objectively superior to the other" is purely deontological, saying that violently coercing people is bad.

I'm not coming from "this is bad" (even more because lots of times I don't think it is). Just from "this is a social imposition".

Utility has a shared meaning among a population, ontology is meaningless over a group.

Where are you getting "objectively superior" from without reference to good/bad?

One exists, the other is meaningless.

Try again. In what sense are you using the word "superior"? To an English speaker, as you've used it, it means "better".

If you want to call deontological the argument that a tool that exists is better to solve a problem than one that doesn't, then, well, we are at a new level of meta that I really wasn't speaking at earlier.

Yet, social deontology is meaningless¹, and the people using it on political arguments are just using it as a decoy for doing something that they pretty much derive utility from (on my case from being able to eventually settle anything down, on the original comment, from commanding people around and in some cases, by watching them suffer).

1 - There exists a fuzzy kind of "partial" deontology that people often share in practice. Yet, the moment one starts coercing people, it's a symptom that it just isn't there.