Deleuzian & Landian Differences (SEE DESCRIPTION)

NOTE: As referenced in the 3rd part of chapter 2 in Difference & Repetition, empty time comes from Kant (the pure and empty form). To Kant, it's a formal feature and not "the thing in itself." Empty time breaks free from time's continual repetition, but it is akin to the eternal return (via Nietzsche) as well as death personified (0=death=empty) to Deleuze, which mainly produces a sense of indifference and not necessarily a mirroring of a Freudian "death drive." In other words, Deleuze certainly compares it to Freud's death drive and Thanatos, but it doesn't have the same implications as Freud's concept in the sense that it doesn't induce one towards any kind of inclination towards actual death, unlike Freud's concept, which is literally a drive towards self-destruction itself. When Deleuze uses the term, it resembles a neutral state of indifference displayed in an individual (a zero energy state). In other words, Deleuze does not agree with Freud (or Lacan for that matter) in how the death drive functions. Deleuze frees it from the dualistic Freudian model (i.e., Eros vs Thanatos). Deleuze prefers the term "death instinct" as opposed to "death drive" for this specific reason. However, unlike psychoanalytic models, Deleuze does not believe the unconscious is composed of internal conflicts in need of repression (unlike Freud). Hence the creation of schizoanalytics, which can be used not to repress desires (unlike psychoanalysis), but to use them in the act of becoming Other (a transformative act of autopoiesis).
Furthermore, to Deleuze, time is present, but it also contains both past and future. In other words, past and future is thus contained within the present. In this sense, it is everywhere at once and omnipresent (i.e., we move or change in time, but time does not move or change, which is separate of course from Plato's view of the "eternal forms," which says that there is a eternal essence to things outside of the physical world).
Also, since Deleuze advocates for the Plane of Immanence later on in What is Philosophy?, all things must be immanent to themselves and remain "within" as opposed to having distinct transcendental properties of "outsideness," which is something Land advocates for with the Kantian noumena (specifically, the fanged noumena). Hence why I make the difference between the two in terms of immanence vs transcendence.
Certainly, Land and Deleuze are linked to the line of flight to "the outside" as it were (the 3rd term created from 2) through the body without organs (difference & repetition). The distinction I see comes mostly from my reading of Land's "Mechanomics," where Aleph-0 vaporizes on the plane of consistency (i.e., Deleuze's plane of immanence), using the "transcendental" (i.e., a priori) arithmetic of Godel and the diagonal method of Cantor. The quote by Land that the "truth can never be exposed" is specifically because it is outside or beyond our experience, which matches the term of "transcendent". Therefore, I find both terms at play, where transcendent = outside (i.e., beyond) and where transcendental = cognitive a priori knowledge.
And, on top of all of that (and above all else), we have to remember how much of a Lovecraftian that Land actually is. The outside must come inside; but, even when it does, it will not be successfully understood. ^_^