It's related to the 3rd commandment to not make an image of G-d. I don't believe the permission to illustrate the megillah has anything to do with G-d's name n

It's related to the 3rd commandment to not make an image of G-d. I don't believe the permission to illustrate the megillah has anything to do with G-d's name not being mentioned, as there are accepted illustrations of Tanach (where G-d's name is mentioned) across the spectrum. As long as there is no depiction of G-d it is fine. As an orthodox Jew, I have no reason to believe that any other orthodox Jew would be OK with making a depiction of G-d. If someone else did, it would just be avoided. I can't speak for any other denominations. Another thing an orthodox Jew might do is preface any anthropomorphic mention of G-d with "kavayachol" meaning "as if it were possible" (loosely translated as "so to speak"), in recognition of the fact that G-d cannot be prescribed physical qualities. Edit: just saw your note about historical precedence. For an orthodox Jew there is no separation of what it says in the Torah and what has happened historically. We follow a masoretic tradition as to the interpretation of the Torah. So as I said above, I can't imagine an orthodox Jew being OK with a depiction of G-d from a Torah standpoint.