@adamsforsheriff:
Playing a literal game (roulette) by the rules is just for fun. It doesn't mean you highly value your word or your good name, especially when the stakes are vastly higher in different situations.
! 
! 
! 
! 
! 
! 
! 
! 
! 
! 
! 
! 
! 
! 
It's pretty fair to say she treats these deals seriously. Just because she takes some glee in liking games doesn't mean she isn't invested in it to think they're not a big deal. As she said, living freely is of utmost importance for her. And she's a big stickler for her assailants and allies coughing up "equal exchange" for when they commit acts that cost her valuable power. This isn't just about fun for her, all of these deals and alliances tie into her literal philosophy of life. Oda never takes characterizations of figurative/symbolic elements like this lightly when conveying themes associated with piracy, freedom, inherited will, family, etc. You're just superficially judging that because she settles it with a roulette, which is associated with games, that she doesn't view her negotiations to have merit in keeping. Which isn't really a good way to judge a series that can be as quirky and cartoony as One Piece. That's like saying Kaido doesn't value any of his endeavors to build a huge SMILE army, find out info about Raftel, making an alliance with the Shogun of Wano Country, and causing anarchy just because his hobby is committing suicide. Which would have a prejudicial connotation of not caring about anything in life. Big Mom deserves more credit than just having people think she's crazy (which she is, but not in the generic, random, amoral way a lot of forum users seem to presume).
Pedro's thievery and Jinbei's choice to leave are nuisances committed by parties that have zero power to negotiate. They're just playing a game for Mom's amusement, and a game's not amusing if you're just going to fix the outcome.
And it's because of those nuisances that they have no choice to negotiate. She doesn't punish people with being provoked. When she gives islands her protection, the rule is that if you don't pay your candy quota, you're destroyed. When it comes to the Totland citizens, they can choose to pay the soul tax to stay (and since it's only month of their lifespan paid every six months, that's actually pretty lenient deal that hardly costs much for a Yonko's protection in the New World) or leave and not be punished. It all fits into "equal exchange". Jimbei did have room to negotiate by the way, the roulette was the compromise. Only Pedro didn't have any room due to attacking Tamago and presumably causing ruckus in Totland with Zepo. Also, Luffy had room to negotiate when Fishman Island was about to be selected for destruction, and so did Sanji (at the time before the reveal) despite being forced into the wedding.
It's not just for Big Mom's amusement (although she is certainly amused by her games lol), it's her established philosophy. One that's ethically wrong, sure. I'm not disputing that at all, along with her other crimes. But it all fits into a system though. An system of established integrity from Big Mom's perspective that makes sense formulaically and ethically in a perverse fashion. One we have seen several examples of, as I have posted above. Which is why it's disappointing for certain people to see that established and entertaining narrative/character dynamic element betrayed.
On the other hand, when she made the deal with Sanji, there was a massive army already brutalizing Luffy, and Brulee was already attacking Carrot/Bropper. Brulee explicitly states that Chopper's going in the museum, after Mom's promise to Sanji. She doesn't show any evidence of valuing the deal, she puts the crew in hugely dangerous situations anyway. That's not exactly valuing your reputation as a fair dealmaker.
Brutalizing Luffy after he himself brutalized one of her Sweet Commanders. And the Enraged Army was sent out to deal with Luffy before the deal with Sanji was made, and the battle ended in the scene right before the deal was made. Like I keep saying, she sensibly punishes those who provoke her wrath. That's my issue with the whole Vinsmoke betrayal reveal. They haven't done anything that she has been aware of on-panel to reasonably provoke her into engaging in such a betrayal or at least calling off the wedding. And it still doesn't even make sense logically because she would gain both the cloning tech AND the established military might of the Vinsmokes and clones if the wedding proceeds smoothly.
She never made communications with Brûlée. I just re-read all of the chapters from the deal with Sanji. Nobody outside of the Mirror World knows about Chopper and Carrot's shenanigans yet. Or that Brûlée had tried to chase them in the Mirror World in general. All Brûlée even cares about is preserving Chopper for Big Mom's rare creature library collection. So Big Mom did not immediately trample over the deal she made with Sanji without probation. How can anyone value a deal regarding people whose situations they don't currently knows about?
I don't see any of this changing Big Mom's characterization. She's incredibly selfish, but likes to play herself up as somebody reasonable. She'll make deals with little fish for things like sweets, eyes, or years. And she seems to keep them (though we have no clue what she'll do if she wants more FI candy in two weeks). But when something's important to her (perhaps, killing Luffy after FI, having Chopper as an interesting museum piece, finding out about Lola, seizing the Vinsmoke's tech), she's happy to disregard her word. That interpretation is perfectly consistent with what we saw up until the reveal. It just changes the way you interpret the deals she made. And it makes even more sense after the reveal, when we've got the torture scene and more. It's up to you if you consider that sort of character uninteresting or uncomplex. Seems to me that you got really invested in Mom as a dealmaker, so you're personally upset that we're seeing evidence that maybe those earlier deals weren't as square as they looked.
You act like being selfish and reasonable have to mutually exclusive. Their connotations of the former being linked to deceit in certain cases and the latter typically being views in a purely virtuous light may come at odds with one another, but there can definitely be a balance with the core definitions they have.
She's most likely not going to still care about Fishman Island after this arc. If Jimbei's joining the Straw Hats this arc, then Big Mom's ownership of Fishman Island has to be settled. He's not leaving otherwise.
I've established that none of those situations you mentioned at the time before the Vinsmoke betrayal reveal were instances of her betraying her word or were even relevant. It's not consistent. And distastefully so for me as a huge fan of her character up until this point. And having evidence that backs up her change of character AFTER the change is established without any explicit hinting beforehand does not change that at all. This is not an argument of pure subjectivity, there is actual compelling evidence to back up those who are dissatisfied with the route Oda chose to take with Big Mom's character.
I find it seriously insulting that you're just handwaving my argument as being that of an irrational biased overreaction of someone who misjudged how a character was being written. Especially when you are the one who is not giving Big Mom proper credibility as a character. Especially considering how likely it is for her to make some sort of truce or alliance with Luffy at the end of this arc rather than go down like the typical arc antagonist despite the initial tension between her and Luffy. I can tolerate and understand you not having a problem with Big Mom's character, but don't like others, including myself, don't have valid reasons for not favoring this recent turn of events completely.
The point about Mom having no clue that she commits these sprees is fair based on what we've seen, I suppose, but it's not great writing. You're telling me people just convince her that her castle was wrecked and her son was killed while she was in a blackout, by total coincidence? She's so dumb that it works? And the coverups are so complete that nobody else hears about these incidents and realizes that Mom isn't a rational party for negotiations (e.g., her actions don't harm her good name at all)? Awfully convenient.
Sounds as convenient as having a three-eyed daughter who has the power to edit people's memories. Who she strangely didn't tell to check Nami's memories to see how she knows Lola. I don't know if that's either some sort of hint or negligent writing on Oda's part.
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.
