i answered q1 agreeing that according to the standing law he did not commit genocide, similar to your three points.

but for q2 i said that the intent that he claimed to save the world may not be true since there is no body of law to enforce any his actions. it will also be impossible to ensure that the victims of his action will be at “random”. that’s why i thought that he might have been using his limitless power to construct a political lie and create the impression that he is killing for good. so merely comparing his actions to the standing definitions of genocide would have been insufficient effort to judge his action without considering the context of his case.