"So while Deontology over-corrects for this (for example, if you put a gun to my head and demand that I profess belief X, I'm going to say that I believe X, which a Deontological prohibition against lying forbids), it does so in a way that is better than many people's naive consequential thinking."

On one level, isn't all deontology consequentialist? In the deontologist moral system that proscribes lying, it doesn't proscribe saying certain words or making certain markings on paper--or to go one level higher, moving my fingers as if on a keyboard. Clearly the real prohibition is on intentionally (or through negligence) decieving someone, which is a consequence of certain acts in specific contexts.

So I think that while they seem quite different, there is a fuzzy line between the two. Of course I've no doubt this is obvious and elementary.