I'm convinced honestly

I would argue that Caesar’s actions being seen as a positive has more to do with why Tiberius going for a second tribunate was seen as a positive - not because norms had been eroded (though certainly norms were eroded by Caesar’s time) but because it had become apparent that the disconnect between the reality of the Republic after the Second Punic War, and the norms that served the government before it, were crushing the great mass of ordinary Romans in a way that they did not in the mid-Republic.

When the system appears designed to fuck you over, you become less attached to the norms of the system. The equilibrium that was maintained by the ~3rd century BCE Republic was obliterated by the growth of the city of Rome - both in population and wealth - and the inability and unwillingness of the aristocracy to make new accommodations without being forced.

When people are desperate, they turn to dangerous men, like Caesar. Sometimes it works out for them. More often, it doesn’t. Which outcome Caesar counts as… depends on one’s reading. :p

1. The notion of Caesar committing genocide requires mixing modern estimates of Gaul’s population with Caesar’s inflated numbers of the ‘grandeur’ and scale of his victory; and assuming intent when Caesar’s actions clearly are not oriented towards the destruction of the Gauls and, in fact, he goes through great lengths to maintain extant native Gallic political institutions and leadership.

2. The issue of whether Caesar was a tyrant is separate from his imperialism in Gaul.