You can slightly change the scenarios and get it so that people counter factually wouldn't have died if you didn't exist, which don't seem much morally different. For example X is going to donate to givewell and save Zs life. Should you (Y) convince X to donate to an anti-tobacco campaign which will save more lives. Is this morally the same as (risk free, escalation-less) terrorism or the same as being X?

Anyway I have the feeling people are getting bored of me on this subject, including myself. Simply chalk this up to someone not compartmentalizing correctly. Although I think that if I need to keep consequentialist reasoning compartmentalised, I am likely to find all consequentialist reasoning more suspect.