You shouldn't kill people because there is a value in not killing that is independent of the outcome of that choice.

As an attempt to remove the programming jargon (I don't know of any words or expressions which express the same concept without math or programming jargon of some kind):

For that example, skipping the traditional "Kill this one or five others die!" dilemma, if we suppose the person to be killed will revive on their own and thereby become immortal, with no additionnal side effects, the deontological rule still takes precedent and therefore it is good to let the person later die of old age. Rule consequentialism, in such a corner case, would want the person to end up immortal.

Correct?

Just to see if I'm following correctly:

If I want to follow the rule "optimize actions for some utility function X", rule consequentialism says I do this because of the result of the utility function X, and my terminal value is X()¹, which I am trivially doing better decisionmaking for by using the aforementioned rule.

On the other hand, deontology says that I'm following that rule because X itself is good, regardless of whether I value X() or not. This may be because that is simply how human brains are programmed and that is what they do, or by some philosophically-vague decree from higher powers, or something else, but the key point being that X() is completely irrelevant?

1) Programmer slang. If I say my value is "X", that means I value the function, but if I say X(), that means I value the output of the function.

Your description of deontological ethics sounds closer to rule consequentialism, which is a different concept. Deontology means that following certain rules is good in and of itself, not because they lead to better decisionmaking (in terms of promoting some other good) in situations of uncertainty.

Survey taken. Defected since I'm neutral as to whether the money goes to Yvain or a random survey-taker, but would prefer the money going to me over either of those two.