That he was a hedonist is not arguable. That he accomplished a bit of good is also unarguable. That he, like all of us, had his negatives, is also true. Whether he did more good than bad? That is arguable and depends entirely on one's perspective.
Not arguable is that he was wildly successful in his chosen field. He knew his audience, catered to it, and. should a member be open to it, expanded their horizons with respect to literature, politics, attire, etc. He made a lot of people want to live up to the image he created. Wildly successful or wildly decadent? Perspective is what defines whether he was a "good" or a "bad" guy. But, he was a force no matter one's perspective.