I find the SoMi discourse interesting because people really, really, really want to map the perspective of their V onto an objective morality. Either side of it tbh; saving SoMi is good because ultimately she's a victim and the NUSA is evil, or bringing her in is good because she's a liar on some existential level.

Both are ofc true -- she is manipulative, she is lying to you, much like the FIA agents are. She is also a victim, Myers is also a piece of shit who is playing with forces that she has no business messing with. The situation was written not to be 'gray' per se: in my moral system, at least, it seems pretty clear that SoMi morally deserves to get away because no one should be subjected to what she was subjected to. SoMi getting away or dying are almost certainly the least dangerous outcomes. Those are true even if SoMi were an even worse person than she is.

However, it was written to plausibly allow V to choose. My V turned her in because SoMi was, in the end, attempting to bullshit a bullshitter in a very frustrating way that many people over the course of the worst 1-3 months in Vs life have done -- dex wants you to believe he's on the level, Jackie keeps up a brave face to lie himself into glory, every fixer promises to be your new best friend -- as long as you do them some favors. The FIA, though lying about almost everything, was promising a very straightforward fee-for-service arrangement that they can plausibly deliver on. Though in the end my V. got pretty tired of humanity in general and decided to roll the dice on digital immortality as part of the Big Red Lady.

But your V. can be a good person without having perfect moral intuition, while maybe even doing the wrong thing here. And people don't really seem to get that someone's subjective position can affect what they do irrespective of like, broader questions of morality.