Judge decision in a tournament

Table of 4 players.

Player 1 does not get the political support of player 3 to develop his game and after several discussions during the game, player 1 decides to do everything possible to get player 3 off the table and gain political control in order to take the table.

Several actions take place that leave player 3 ready to be killed. Player 2 starts his turn and player 3 makes him a proposition. Taking into account his imminent death and the previous discussions and a high level of tension with player 1, player 3 proposes that player 2 does not kill him, let him take out the vampire he has in the uncontrolled zone and that his actions until the end of the game will be to kill player 1. When he succeeds he will let himself be killed The situation of player 3 is 6 of pool, a vampire tapped with one of blood in the controlled zone and a vampire in the uncontrolled zone with 2 of pool.

Player 2 accepts because he has no way to stop player 1 in 1vs1.

From here player 1 claims that it is an illegal pact, that it is more of a collusion and that it should not be allowed.

There was a section in some rules that talked about "Playing to be God" and applying it in the game allowed the player in some situations to do whatever he wanted before die. The referee of the tournament understood at this moment that the situation of player 3 was of imminent death if player 2 did not accept the pact and gave it as valid.

How to proceed in this case ?

Just to better understand the situation/state of the game. What happened to player 4 ?

Not really relevant despite the fact that he won the table in the end after that "ally" war. Player 1 was claiming the illegality of that deal until he decide to give up when player 3 began to hurt him.

The question here is to know if that deal and the reasons behind are legal in tournament or just no basis to allow that deal.

Just to get it right:
Player 1 helped with actions to oust player 3 and complained afterwards about Player 3 helping to oust him? Lol.
Bad play from both I'd say, but legal. That is VtES too. You have to play not only the other decks but the other players also.
Fortunately the plan didn't succeed and all of the dealmakers will know better next time.
Of course it is a difficult situation for player 1, if his crosstable 'buddy' does not vote in his favour. And it is okay to call a KRC 1 on prey, three on grandprey to show what happens, if latter does not support his pol. actions. But to state player 3 should better and will die to get vote lock is unwise imho. And Player 1 has to live with the consequences.