That seems like a very clear walk-through of the ontological argument.
I think that where these kinds of discussions fall down is in the concept of "perfection". Who's to say what is perfect, and what is not? It's a human value-judgement that doesn't really mean anything. So expecting God to be "perfect" is kind of empty. If God were to exist, He wouldn't have these human standards stuck all over Him.
A logical argument for god is a waste of time. I respect faith more than apologetics, at least they are honest about it.
If god does intervene in human lives as so many people believe, then god must be continuously mindful of the bell curve because if he drops the ball and forgets to present brain cancer to the proper number of babies, that will throw the insurance actuary tables way off.
It is a clear case of ill defined terms and a non-sequitur. The conclusion does not follow the arguments. This is one of the worst of the [so-called] "proofs" of god.