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.

... if 'u' never ever admits the broad and nigh-inevitable aftereffects of such an event, severely underestimates the harm of being raped, and doesn't consider the effects of such a policy in general, yes, u could.

In other words, the consequentialist faces the problem that they can do bad things if they're don't think things through.

The deontologist is generally fairly stable against doing horrible things for the greater good, but more often faces the problem that they are barred from doing something that really IS for a much greater good. Ethical tradeoffs are something it's ill-suited to dealing with.