This is confused because the term ‘deontology’ in philosophical jargon picks out a normative ethical theory, while the question ‘why is it wrong to kill?’ is not a normative but a meta-ethical question. Similarly, consequentialism contains in itself no explanation for why pleasure or utility are morally good, or why consequences should matter to morality at all. Nor does consequentialism/deontology make any claims about how we know moral facts (if there are any). That is also a meta-ethical question.

Either D-ology or C-ism can be taken meta-ethically or at the object level (ie following rules blindly or calculating consequences without knowing why).

Some consequentialists and deontologists are also moral realists.

Surely most are. C-ism is moral realism justified empirically, D-ology is moral realism jusitfied logically. Out of the two uses, the former, the meta ethical is more usual.