Yvain says that people claim to be using one simple deontological rule "Don't violate consent"

Sort of, yes. I definitely need to write a full post on why I believe his criticism is subtly unfair in various ways - likely because this is an emotional subject for him, so he is somewhat less inclined to pull his punches and steelman opposing views; and he is both a brilliant writer and a brilliant thinker.

in fact they are using a complicated collection of rules of the form "Don't violate consent in this specific domain" while not following other rules of that form

Actually, he accuses them of claiming to, and advocating following those rules only in those situations where doing so agrees with their agenda - which he characterizes, not unreasonably. A charge of hypocrisy, rather than inconsistency.

And yet, you accuse him of strawmanning their argument to be simple.

I do? I accuse him of strawmanning their arguments to be cartoonishly poor arguments, but simple...?

Ah! Are you perhaps referring to my characterization of simple deontological rules ("thou shalt not kill" etc.)? Yes, I would generally reject those as overly simple - there are many situation where one might be called upon to kill for the greater good, for example.

(There are vast differences between deontological ethics, rule utilitarianism, and the optimal laws for legal systems both real and hypothetical.)