can be replaced with

"because we believe that Hitler is good essentially"

"belief" is subjective, so you've done kamikaze to your own premise.

If you need your unicorn to cope with the unknown, feel free to use it, but please refrain from trying to claim you have insight that those who don't believe in unicorns don't have.

But there are innumerable situations where dishonesty is a virtue. What you are saying is that dishonesty cannot be a virtue, unless there is a situation where a moral absolute trumps the moral absolute of honesty.
Say, I lie to Nazi soldiers about the location of a few Jewish people in Nazi Germany, just to save their lives. I am lying (being dishonest) to save lives.
The only way to square this with God's perfectly good nature, is to say that the certain aspects of God's nature which tell us to save lives is superior to God's truthful nature.
The moral absolute to be truthful, which is derived from God's perfectly good truthful nature is not as important to the moral absolute about protecting life, which is also part of God's perfectly good nature. So, essentially, there are parts of God's nature that are superior to other parts of God's nature.

If you can't even define what God is, how can you say it exists?

I would argue that at the very least Eve had the ability to speak with serpents. Following "the fall". This is no longer the case.

Like you, like Richard Swinburne, I'm not a big fan of the Objective Morality argument.
It has several leaks below the waterline, some of which you have alluded to. However, where would you say our sense of morality, our ability to determine and act equitable, fair, balanced, kind, generous and so on originate from?

I would love to see you show us how the QV is "more explanatory in scope" than what God is.