This isn't an historical question. "Good" and "bad" aren't things an historian should consider. Whether he got what he deserved depends on all kinds of your own personal politics.

That being said, I think Caesar is a special character - I feel (and I mean to be completely subjective here) Caesar is someone you can't not take an opinion on.

I agree with Meier. Killing Caesar wasn't just a sin; it was a mistake (that's perhaps my favorite line written in all classical scholarship). Caesar was the only chance for fixing the political mess the Senate had become. Assassinating him guaranteed some warlord would dominate the state.

But this is a subjective opinion, and again, the question is not an historical question.

EDIT: I left out the most important word in the post. Sorry, anyone who read this earlier.

Hi there! :) As /u/LegalAction noted, this question is difficult to answer due to its being subjective. I did, however, answer an extremely similar question a little while back - and I believe, for a subjective question, that it's best to offer all sides of the story as fairly as possible. From there, you can make your own call :) So, without further ado, I'm gonna go ahead and copy/paste my previous answer from here.

---

The issue with this question is that it is completely variant on a subjective viewpoint. Judging whether or not a person as famous as Caesar was "good" or "evil" is a truly impossible task, not only because of the differences in morality between the ancient era and the modern one, but also because of the different nuances of character that an individual has. Julius Caesar was undoubtedly a great man who left his mark on history. Whether or not "great" means "good" or "evil" is, again, up to individual interpretation.

Starting off that examination, I'll suggest you go ahead and read this excellent introduction to Life of a Colossus. Honestly, I recommend you read the whole book, but for our purposes here, the introduction answers your question perfectly, and far better than I can, myself. To know more about Caesar as a person, read the entire book - it's the best biography I've found of the man, and gives an excellent accounting with a neutral viewpoint on the person himself.

The long story short is that Caesar was as amoral as anyone else has ever been. He wasn't good or evil; he was simultaneously neither and both. He did great things for Rome, for the poor, and when it benefited him. He also was in charge of the hugely destructive Gallic War, which was incredibly popular with the Roman people, who considered it a good thing. The modern eye would consider it less so, with a (probably exaggerated) total of one million people killed and another million enslaved. Again, whether or not the Gallic Wars made Caesar a "good person" or "bad person" is entirely subjective. For the Romans, he offered civil peace and a pretty good deal for the common people, even if the aristocrats couldn't stand him. To our modern view, he made himself an autocrat in all but name. While he wasn't emperor, he consolidated power and kept people he didn't like from getting anywhere; but his reforms were good ones, and some of them lasted for centuries, despite Caesar's extremely short rule.

He was ruthless in his own way, but he also offered clemency when it suited him. He offered friendship when he saw it to be beneficial, but he also offered enmity when that was more in his favour. So the answer to your question, I suppose, would be "both and neither." He was a person, and no person is black or white - we're all shades of grey.