As consequentalist u can think that raping and killing is ok if torturer receives more amount of joy then amount of pain received by the victim. It seems even more obvious in the case with group of assaulters and one victim.

Well, a consequentialist's utility function doesn't have to allow that. There are some utility functions that don't justify that kind of behavior. But I agree that the question of how to aggregate individual utilities is a weak spot for consequentialism. The repugnant conclusion is pretty much about that.

As deontologist you can always justify almost any deed by some trivial "for greater good" rule

As far as I understand, a deontologist's rule set doesn't have to allow that. There are some rule sets that don't justify all deeds.

And virtue ethics can be misleading in many ways, consider Halo effect and what can be consequences - Dr. Evil will take over world in seconds.

Yeah, I guess that's why virtue ethicists say that recognizing virtue is an important skill. Not sure if they have a more detailed answer, though.