That was interesting, although I've never read The Killing Joke.
Here's a little NY Times piece about the morality of 'Team Walt': http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/29/opinio...t.html?src=recg
The allure for Team Walt is not ultimately the pull of nihilism, or the harmless thrill of rooting for a supervillain. It’s the pull of an alternative moral code, neither liberal nor Judeo-Christian, with an internal logic all its own. As James Bowman wrote in The New Atlantis, embracing Walt doesn’t requiring embracing “individual savagery” and a world without moral rules. It just requires a return to “old rules” — to “the tribal, family-oriented society and the honor culture that actually did precede the Enlightenment’s commitment to universal values.”
Those rules seem cruel by the lights of both cosmopolitanism and Christianity, but they are not irrational or necessarily false. Their Darwinian logic is clear enough, and where the show takes place — in the shadow of cancer, the shadow of death — the kindlier alternatives can seem softheaded, pointless, naïve.
Nor can this tribal morality be refuted in a laboratory. Indeed, by making Walt a chemistry genius, the show offers an implicit rebuke to the persistent modern conceit that a scientific worldview logically implies liberalism, humanism and a widening circle of concern. On “Breaking Bad,” that worldview just makes Walt a better kingpin, and the beautiful equations of chemistry are deployed to addict, poison, decompose.
Here's another that spends a little more time on Hank's arc:http://douthat.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/09/18/the-hero-of-breaking-bad/
That person is Hank Schrader, Walt’s D.E.A. brother-in-law, who (I said there would be spoilers) breathed his last in Sunday’s episode, taken down by the clutch of neo-Nazi gangsters who seem to be emerging as the real winners from Walt’s long descent into criminality. Hank was introduced in the first season as the jerkish, bullying foil to a put-upon, underappreciated protagonist who back then had the audience’s sympathies. But over time the apparent foil been gradually revealed as, if not the show’s hero, then at least it’s (if you will) anti-anti-hero: A better husband than Walt, a better father (figure) to Walt’s children, and the only man in law enforcement capable of consistently putting his brother-in-law’s twisted genius to the test. In the course of the show, as Walt has sunk to ever-lower depths of turpitude, his brother-in-law has been given the classic hero’s arc: The repeated testing, physical and moral and physical again; the near-successes in which the prize is plucked away the last moment; the temporary falls from grace; the persistent brushes with despair. And he has followed this arc without either turning into a plaster saint (the flawed, crude, bullying character of Season 1 is still recognizable in the Hank of Season 5) or doing anything bad enough to make him an anti-hero in his own right. (His one huge moral lapse, the beating of Jesse Pinkman in Season 3, took place under extenuating circumstances and was followed by Hank taking full responsibility and accepting his potential dismissal from the D.E.A. without a fight.)
This willingness to let a major character be genuinely heroic — again, not flawless or entirely saintly, but heroic all the same — is something you don’t see on a lot of the “Sopranos” imitators that now crowd the cable landscape, where the pursuit of grittiness increasingly means making everyone an adulterer, everyone a crook, and writing characters who tend to converge in corruption, until it’s anti-heroes all the way down. And it’s very easy to imagine a version of “Breaking Bad” in which Hank wasn’t allowed to occupy a steady moral center — a version in which he was on the take from the cartel, for instance, or a version in which he was a good cop but a lousy philanderer of a husband, like Jimmy McNulty on “The Wire” or countless other examples on lesser shows.
But the fact that he lived and died essentially uncorrupted, having chased an evil man without entering deeply into that same evil himself, has been crucial to the distinctiveness of “Breaking Bad,” and to its dramatic success. It’s not only that having a good man on Walt’s tail has given the audience a moral stake in events, a sense of personal interest that’s increasingly slipped away in the grim, “isn’t everybody just awful” later seasons of a show like “Mad Men.” It’s also that in the lived reality of human beings, everyday heroism and moral decency aren’t actually as rare — or as easily crushed by the world’s Tywin Lannisters — as you would think from turning on a lot of prestige television these days. And so having a good man on Walt’s tail has actually made “Breaking Bad” more realistic than shows that deliberately write virtue and heroism out of their storylines entirely.
That's a portion above, worth reading the whole thing. There are also some very interesting and well thought-out counterarguments in the comments.