Was Julius Caesar killed because he really was a tyrant and a threat to Rome, or was it merely the arrogaof?

...due only to the arrogance of the Senators? {Gawd I hate short questions.} Julie's ego and drive to dominance are unquestionable of course, he was proud to be dictator for life, but the reforms he was proposing in the Empire seem worthwhile and proved inevitable. He was not a madman or a wastrel. Not Caligula or Nero. Self love is not necessarily an impediment to good governance. Maybe the better phrasing of this question would be, "Would it have been better for Rome to allow him his delusions of divinity and to have enjoyed his reforms than to have endured the wars and painful divisiveness that followed his demise?" You know, sometimes (often) we have to put up with the arseholes if they are really good at their jobs. Oh? You did know that? How was your day at work today?