Sure, but it shouldn't be to anyone's satisfaction when stated without more support.

(1) It seems to be a blatant case of the supernaturalistic fallacy. Why this is different from the naturalistic fallacy requires explanation.

(2) If taken seriously, it's not clear that good = what God wants (let's call it Godly) is the same thing as good = what we always mean otherwise (let's call it betterful). The argument is about betterfulness, not about Godliness.

Christian apologists can usually give a plausible if not wholly convincing justification for divine command theory. But to say simply nothing leaves such a gaping hole that it renders the argument against the problem of evil argument little better than simply putting one's hands on one's hips and sternly declaring: "No!"