Well, that's a logical fallacy if I've ever seen one. I explicitly wrote that GotG is a great compendium of the things in the Marvel approach to movies I don't like but that can unfailingly be found in every MCU cinematographic installment, meaning that I find it to be the most representative movie out of them all. A thesis which finds indirect support in the fact that it turned a bunch of D-list characters into world-wide recognisable names almost overnight, a fact that definitely influenced the relative importance of the Guardians in the wider context of the franchise-spanning Infinity Gems storyline. And I have good reason to do that since, after more than a dozen movies, I know that there's very little (though not null) chance of a curve ball in the future of the Cinematic Universe.
Elevating Zack Snyder's movies to the role of representatives of the whole DCEU just because they were the first in chronological order is very unfair towards all the other directors who'll work in the sandbox that may have been established by him but where he definitely has no absolute control (or are you saying that he was the mind between Suicide Squad, just to name one?). Being the most representative always beats being the one who came first, otherwise, looking at the character's history, you'd never complain about Batman using guns.
And about him quoting Cheney, what can I say? Never really listened to the man's speeches so no way I can refute your point. I just know that the Batman I saw in BvS was like, a hundred times more bearable than the one starring in comic books in the late Nineties, especially the one featuring in JLA, where he came off as a sort of hybrid of Josif Stalin and Lavrentij Beria. How can anyone forget Tower of Babel, where his reaction to working in a team side by side with people like J'onn J'onzz, Diana and Wally West, people who thought him a friend or at least an ally, was to create a list of counter-measures to take them down if there were any need of it? When I first read that story I thought that the reason he wanted to have those plans was that was afraid the aforementioned heroes would've one day stopped putting up with his crap and decided to come after him! And what about that time when, all by himself, he kicked out Huntress of the JLA for not having killed Prometheus and the whole scene was framed as if he had been patiently waiting for even the weakest pretext to give her the boot and ruining her career as a superheroine? And those comic books were written respectively by Mark Waid and Grant Morrison! People I'd assume actually knew what they were doing.
I already answered to that in my reply to ImprobableQuestion but I think I'll get a bit deeper in my reasons here. The problem with elevating something that is part of a wider context as representative of the whole context is a logical fallacy because there are waaaay too many examples, not just in fiction, of the phenomenon known to the community of TvTropes as "early installment weirdness". By now the MCU has reached an acceptable degree of maturity that a single element of it can be taken out of it and used as a representative of the whole ensemble. The same cannot be said about the DCEU and it'll probably take at least five or six years before we get there. In the meantime, the end of Snyder's involvement in the franchise and other authors with different sensibilities entering it could very well take what was established in the beginning about the few characters introduced by Zack and reshape it in unexpected ways. After all, before Civil War I thought Captain America and Iron Man to be deep down people with a head firmly on their shoulders. How wrong I was proven!