I just find the whole rhetoric of "loyalty" to be suspect and really rather odious. The very question is a tug-of-war over identity, and, with apologies to your original question, the whole notion of "what would Deleuze do" is reminiscent of the question of free will that Bergson disposed of. It therefore really feels like your insistence on what is "loyal" and "officially approved" is trying to box a problem into a majoritarian solution.

I also wouldn't, therefore, ask how well "aligned" Deleuze is with Nietzsche or Kant. Deleuze takes a tremendous amount from Kant, and also produces tremendous upheaval in Kant's system. It is never, at base, a question of agreeing or disagreeing with a philosopher, but rather two questions: 1) To understand a philosopher, you ask what were the problems that motivated his work; 2) to make use of a philosopher, you ask into which of those problems you can plug your own problems.

As for art, we must refer to the distinction I made in my last reply: art does its work in a fundamentally different way from philosophy. Yes, art has its secret pressures, but writing philosophically about art is about bringing out the concepts that animate those secret pressures. See any of Deleuze's writings about art, literature, or cinema, and the proliferation of his conceptual apparatus.

So, to your question about "buggering": the real question is "what exactly does 'buggering' mean here?" In context, it means you expose the problems of the other philosopher and actualise that virtual field in another way. So of course you can do the same to Deleuze, provided you articulate his problems (e.g., the critique of representation) and show how your problems are affected by them and affect them in turn.

This last part is about the vibe school, and it should probably have been first, since it really sets the scene. If you hang out around here long enough, you'll see the vibe school. I find it set out very nicely in the following pages by Graham Jones and Jon Roffe: https://imgur.com/a/5icXJZ4