here about ambiguity in Poul Anderson's History of Technic Civilization recalls the unambiguity of EE Smith's Lensman series. I have read Lensman neither in its entirety nor recently so am unable to comment at length. I do remember a bar conversation between two incorruptible Lensmen and two immoral women. What was memorable about that passage was its unidimensional characterization. Apart from a shared spoken language, there was no common ground between the two pairs of characters. There is purity and there is depravity and never the twain shall meet.
Dominic Flandry would have been able to share the women's "immorality" while furthering his mission. Flandry is not only a believable character but also a different believable character from Nicholas van Rijn, David Falkayn and Manse Everard. A competent writer addresses moral issues without presenting stereotypes of morality and immortality. In particular, note David Falkayn's disgust at the ruthlessness of some League companies and what he does about it. Also, there is van Rijn's ability to resolve conflicts and to make peace for trade by addressing diverse interests. Falkayn practises "the van Rijn method" on Ikrananka when he points out that a displaced warrior caste can be employed as guards for caravans on the new trade routes. If you have to disrupt a society, then make sure that everyone involved has a stake in the new set-up. And don't just judge everyone as either good or bad.