Yes indeed. And that's one of the great strengths of the Trilogy.
Vito's frame of reference was much different than Michael's. He was the product of a land in which "justice" was synonymous with power, and all power was in the hands of the local Mafioso. His primary need was to survive. When his family's security was threatened by Fanucci, he killed, as would have happened in Sicily. The criminal empire he built was primarily aimed at providing financial and physical security for his family (the "Mall" is a fitting metaphor). Since politicians hold power in America, he extended his reach to politicians. But (and for me, this is the key difference twixt Vito and Michael), he saw power as a means to an end--maintaining family security and independence ("I refused...to be a puppet on a string...").

For Michael, power was an end unto itself. He was an obsessive controller and manipulator--a power junkie. The conflict within him was his doomed-to-failure quest to legitimize himself and his enterprises while never giving up the illegality and violence that generated individual control and power that he wanted--couldn't live without. He could have been completely legit in Nevada, but he hid his interests in the hotels he owned and controlled, and still kept his hand firmly in control of Pentangeli and his New York criminal empire. And he never stopped grasping for more--pushing out Klingman, lusting after Roth's Havana gaming empire, killing everyone who crossed him. Even in III, when he was the "respectable" patron of a wealthy foundation and a Papal Knight, we saw in the beginning that he still controlled the Commission (Vincent tells him, early on, "everyone knows you're keeping Zasa from rising in the Commission); and he presides over a Commission meeting when the shooting started. And, while the film never explains why Immobiliare was so important to his "legitimacy," I'll bet he wanted to use it as a money-laundering conduit.

"Just when I thought I was out, they pull me back in." Yeah, sure, Michael.