@RealMazen:
No I'm not. You literally made that up. We've never seen her say "I promise to cement this wedding" or anything long those lines. "This is how she makes all of these alliances" is not a factual statement.
And we need explicit statements to spoon feed us every single detail when we already have obvious answers in her characterization and seeing examples of factions she's already allied with? You still haven't covered why Big Mom promising to protect her allies is a loophole to exploit when that subject hasn't been brought up at all. Which likely means it's not relevant. Seriously, these alliances are portrayed in a pretty simple way. A faction wants protection or power, they go to a bigger force, they do some rite of passage (for Big Mom it's marriages, for the Grand Fleet it was sake cup exchanges), and they're allies. And they typically have family themes.
That's really it. There's nothing complicated about that process to read into and exploit some sort of loophole, because there aren't any stipulations for that to be possible like a contract with specific clauses that might have tricky wording. You either go through with it for the benefit of both parties or completely go back on your word for some sort of outside hidden agenda.
In time, we might learn about how any unique intricacies when it comes to allying with the Beast Pirates, Red Hair Pirates, Blackbeard Pirates, and Whitebeard Pirates. The only type of alliance in this series that has slightly complex stipulations would be the Warlords with the World Government, which has definitely been shown to be exploitable. But for the rest of these? No, that's not really possible. You either work with them, backstab them, or leave. And if an ally does something that the parent faction doesn't, it goes without saying that they can be punished in some way.
Right, and you personally added extra things on to that, like Big Mom explicitly promising to make the marriage happen. This is completely nonsensical. You agreed that we don't know everything about her which means that it's not an established pattern that defines her identity nor can it be inconsistent characterisation. Pudding is an example of this. Just because we were shown one thing on-panel at the start doesn't mean that there wasn't more to be uncovered.
Nonsensical? Really? How is ANYTHING about betraying the Vinsmokes sensical from what we know thus far? Making an alliance with them is the only thing that makes solid sense. That's why I'm making this argument in the first place. Just because we don't know everything about Big Mom's past doesn't mean that there aren't parts of her personality that aren't clear patterns with substance. And whenever we do find out things about a character's past, it lines up with how they've acted in the present (whether it's their personality or hints of some sort of facade or secret) up to that point as build-up. Thus far, betraying the Vinsmokes pretty much goes against everything we know about Big Mom up until this point. Oda didn't bother to build up all of that, with literally FIVE on-panel negotiations (Luffy, Jimbei, Caesar, Sanji, and Pedro) with different people where she always held her word, just to go "Big Mom will kill the Vinsmokes at the wedding just because she feels like it because crazy" or "Big Mom wants to keep all of the cloning tech to herself just because, even though that costs her the established military she also wants that takes years/decades to produce". That isn't proper character writing at all because we've seen so many moments of her being by herself and interacting with various types of people with consistency, and her statements have connections to major thematics of the series when it comes advocating selfishness/ambition in various degrees. Oda doesn't ever half-ass the latter when it comes to his characters.
That's different from the likes of Pudding, who we only see interact with the Straw Hats from their perspective for most of her panel-time with little-to-no background info. And literally the first thing we see from her is having a third eye, so throughout the entire Totland arc up until Pudding is revealed as being evil, we as an audience know that she is hiding something. Those circumstances as a character are completely different from Big Mom.
Pudding's first impression was having a peculiar element about her rouse suspicion due to not being present in all of her future appearances. Big Mom's first impression is being an intimidating ruler who was able to be convinced to make a deal with the main protagonist to spare Fishman Island (something that even her own crewmates failed to do), even though said protagonist literally declared war on her at the end of the phone conversations. I think that dissonance alone speaks volumes about what to take from how their characterizations were built-up for us to interpret.
I trust in Oda to give understandable elaboration on what Pudding revealed about the Vinsmokes and Straw Hats dying if it's true, which I assume to be since she has no reason to lie in front of a character whose memory she is about to erase. But I still affirm that none of the reasons you have offered so far are sensical or good storytelling. Just because you don't know everything about a character does not mean there aren't evident patterns (patterns that could support their character consistency OR plant suspicion towards their activity being a facade), that's ridiculous. If true, that makes the act of writing compellingly unique characters redundant if you could have them do whatever they want like puppets and not care about maintaining desired immersion from the audience, which specifically comes from consistency.
Pudding's revelation was the properly built up twist. The wedding has not happened yet so she hasn't done anything yet. Your argument would only be sound if Pudding's revelation didn't happen & BM started attacking the vinsmokes out of nowhere during the wedding. Oda let us know what the deal was beforehand which means it's not gonna come from out of thin air when it does happen. That's what foreshadowing means. Even at the beginning of the arc Big Mom said there was going to be a sacrifice at the wedding & that this would be the tea part from hell.
Pudding betraying the Straw Hats was built-up and makes diegetic sense. The revelation that the Vinsmokes are going to be annihilated doesn't. Don't act like just because one part is sensible, that means everything associated with it is, because betraying the Vinsmokes is still out of nowhere.
Yes, she mentioned a sacrifice. Which is definitely a red flag. And if you know about juxtaposition, then that would mean she was most likely talking about Luffy because right after she says that, Linlin mentions how she can't wait for Straw Hat's arrival. Pudding did tell the Straw Hats that they weren't making it out alive. Now, that would still inconsistently taint Big Mom's established character, but at least THAT makes sense because Luffy is a legitimate threat whose demise would benefit Big Mom. Betraying the Vinsmokes doesn't provide that. In literally any way. And neither of them being the sacrifice explains why this alliance formation in particular has to merit some sort of arbitrary backstabbing compared to how smoothly all of the other alliances went.
! 
A couple of exceptions to the rule does not invalidate it as an argument. Just because she didn't sabotage the political marriages that we've seen doesn't mean it isn't something she hasn't done or wouldn't do.
A couple of "exceptions" that are the only examples of alliances that we have, and thus stand as the precedent for how Big Mom manages her business. Along with one such "exemption" being Jimbei, who we know is an extremely selfless and wise character and specifically chose Big Mom instead of any other Yonko for the benefit of Fishman Island's protection. I don't think Jimbei is the type to go for person who has the precedent of occasionally going back on her word whimsically every once in a while. Not to mention Pekoms, someone who cares very much about his homeland's safety and is an ally of Luffy now (while still most likely not wanting to betray Big Mom), being a Big Mom Pirate as well. And we have at least five other on-panel negotiations to showcase Big Mom's ethical and logical code of conduct. So yes, sabotaging a marriage DOES go against her character. Which is why it better have a good reason behind it if Pudding is telling the truth and doesn't have her own third-party manipulation-based plan like some people are theorizing, or else it's really detrimental to what makes her so charismatic as a character and antagonist.
I don't see anything stopping BM from making the scientist on the Vinsmokes ship program the soldiers into being loyal to her crew or Pudding altering their memories.
If they couldn't "reprogram" Sanji to have his exoskeleton genes pop up (who was the one who literally told Judge that Sanji was a failure and remained human since birth), then I doubt they can rewire the Germa 66 clones. It can probably only done in the process of their conception. Which would explain why Judge himself doesn't have an exoskeleton like his children, because I'm sure he would've wanted one for himself.
).
Nothing exists; even if something exists, nothing can be known about it. Even if something can be known about it,
The face of a Straw Hat.
