Hmm no, I'm not claiming he vultured those points. Would only have been the case if they had come from tournaments with weak fields, which wasn't the case. What I am claiming, and it is not particularly debatable, is that Federer entered and got a lot more points from 250/500 tournaments than Novak. In Slams, Masters and Olympics, Djokovic has collected 9730 points this year, Federer 7655. Djokovic has clearly been the best player in the world in the biggest events, only his reluctance to enter 250/500 events is making the race close; he only entered one so far this year and collected 180 points from it while his closest competitor Federer got 1240. Claiming that Djokovic is the very opposite of a vulture doesn't imply that Federer or any other player is; Federer's 500/250 has been normal, along the lines of what you expect from a top player, it's Djokovic's that has been exceptionally short.
Ah why do you insist with Toronto? Masters 1000 events cannot be vultured, especially considering the ranking system in place where you get a 0 pointer if you don't play one of the 4 Slams and 8 mandatory Masters. If the other top players were tired/lost early, more credit for Novak who played the exacty same schedule as them, took a bigger mental hit than them (doesn't get any worse than 4th place at Olympics) and yet managed to play great tennis that week.
I'd just like to add that for the purpose of determining relative achievements, there's no reason to ignore abstentions from mandatory tournaments. Djokovic could have played more 250/500s and got more points, and Federer could have played Monte Carlo and Toronto, and got more points.
Djokovic is the 'anti-vulture', and Federer is the 'anti-TMS' player.