JPMorgan Chase is also winning the PR war, Bove points out. "The perception is that JPMorgan bailed out the bad guys in their hour of need, while Goldman Sachs went looking to the government for money to bail themselves out—and then denied that they ever needed it." No wonder, then, that the first round of FCIC hearings sometimes felt like an inquiry into the doings of Goldman Sachs.

So far, JPMorgan Chase's status as the "last bank standing" in the wake of the crisis—and the stature of its CEO, who now enjoys the image of being a principled banker rather than an opportunist—has put it in a privileged position. The financial system reform proposals contained in the Volcker Plan seem to put the bank in an even stronger position by squarely attacking Goldman Sachs.

Ironically, however, success in cracking down on its largest rival could spell trouble not only for Goldman, but also, in the long run, for JPMorgan Chase itself. As the Volcker Plan's opponents have pointed out in the days since the proposed crackdown was announced, participating in proprietary trading, investing in hedge funds, and making investments with the firm's own capital aren't the only sources of risk to the financial system. Nor, they add, does the plan address the systemic importance of large financial institutions—the much-discussed "too big to fail" problem.

Jamie Dimon and the rest of JPMorgan Chase have to be thankful that for now, at least, Goldman Sachs is still stuck with a bull's eye on its back, thanks in part to its own missteps in judging the public mood. Because once the debate shifts from Goldman's alleged misdeeds to the more sweeping issue of what best practices on Wall Street should be going forward, JPMorgan will find itself under the microscope.

Should any firm control 22 percent of the syndicated lending market in the United States, as Dealogic reports that JPMorgan Chase did in 2009? Should it be free to use its ability to lend to attract other business, as its rivals claim is happening? "That is what we hear from our clients, when they decide to go with Morgan," says one disgruntled banker from another firm. "They are buying our business with their balance sheet."

At some stage, the debate will move on from Goldman Sachs' past iniquities and focus on future risks to the financial system. And when it does, it's likely that a lot more scrutiny will be devoted to Wall Street's quietest but biggest winner: JPMorgan Chase. "There's some downside risk here for Morgan," says one former banker. "It's vulnerable to being broken up once politicians start getting worried about the sheer size of the surviving banks."

If policymakers decide to follow up the Volcker Plan with another initiative involving a charge or tax on capital, that likely would end up hurting JPMorgan Chase more than Goldman Sachs, points out Bove. "The bank has a balance sheet of $2 trillion, compared to $800 billion in capital for Goldman Sachs. It's clear who would suffer most from something like that."

The longer that Goldman Sachs stays in the spotlight as the "vampire squid" of Wall Street, the happier Jamie Dimon and JPMorgan Chase will be. Staying quiet and low-key has worked well for the bank so far; you won't ever hear anyone at JPMorgan Chase opining, as Blankfein did in an interview with the Sunday Times late last year, that they are doing "God's work."

If the day comes when Goldman is no longer a source of resentment, envy, or systemic risk, the bright spotlight will shift to the bank that is already the clear victor of the crisis—JPMorgan Chase. No wonder Dimon is trying to postpone that moment by waiting for Goldman Sachs to announce details of its compensation plan first. With any luck, by the time the predictable outrage over the magnitude of Goldman's bonuses has simmered down, no one will remember or have any energy to turn their attention to JPMorgan Chase.