Turns out ıt wasn't actually in the crime and punishment one from what I can tell
I made the same mistake earlier
Deserters - These deserting troops go on to form a new deserted party on the campaign map which the party leader can no longer control.
"Deserted parties" - as in parties made up of troops that deserted the fight - are created in the game under some conditions. They are not a deserter faction, though. Could this have been described in a more clear way? Sure. But then Ozan isn't a native language speaker, he certainly always tried his best to explain his thoughts and I doubt anyone here would seriously think him to intentionally mislead people.
Not trying to say that TW is intentionally misleading people, it just really seemed like the use of the word "deserted troops" meant deserters.
Drunks - Tavern - This is where adventurers and drunks alike gather to share stories over a mug of mead.
Is this the quote? Even in isolation it is pretty clear that it doesn't discuss tavern fights as a feature.
"Some revellers are just a nuisance", in the same paragraph as drunks. Maybe I'm misinterpreting it, but what else would be a nuisance in taverns if not the Belligerent Drunk?
Civil Wars - "if you have taken a liking to the kingdom you are currently in, you can subvert it and seize power for yourself!"
Nothing here mentions civil wars. You can build relations, gather influence and even kill the king in battle "by accident" to seize power through a kingdom decision.
Being able to walk up to Derthert, slowly draw a bow point blank in front of his head in full view of his elite troops, and put an arrow through his head then and there to trigger a vote to replace him, and nobody - not even his family - blinking an eye, with zero repercussions or challenge or even acknowledgement, is pretty obviously an exploit. A bad thing, not a feature. (Also not very "subversive").
It totally shatters immersion, and since the point of features like that is for roleplaying/immersion, it defeats the purpose. No reasonable person would think that devblog was referring to an exploit.
If it was actually designed into the game with repercussions (e.g. all lords in the kingdom, except those with very high loyalty to you, instantly declare you a regicidal traitor and attack you on the spot) then I'd wholeheartedly agree with you that it would fulfil what that blog said.
This blog about persuasion specifically denotes a gameplay alternative to battle and combat just before your quote. To me it thus makes more sense for that quote to be referencing defection by AI and player both.
To me "a plot to betray a king", because of the word "plot", sounds like some sort of concerted attempt on the king's position itself. You're right the wording is ambiguous enough that it could just refer to what's already in the game, but the overall impression we got between that devblog, and the one discussed above, was that there would be some kind of mechanic for plotting to take control of an existing kingdom.
Just a usual disclaimer - I am not saying we can't or shouldn't have these features. The discussion is specifically about the claim that there are some 30 or so features (including the ones listed in the OP) that had dedicated dev blogs and weren't included in the game. Aka the implied accusation of a concerted effort to mislead users.
Unlike some, I wouldn't say TW ever set out to scam anyone. I am worried though that the game will release without these Warband features since you guys have gone so long without confirming it, and being able to take over alleyways to run a criminal enterprise is also not explicitly confirmed.
@Spinozart1
A lot of things in warband didn't work for me, like feasts (faction stop fighting to make a party?)
As the OP says, the obvious solution there is for the AI to not choose to hold a feast if they are at war, and end the feast early if a war starts.