Detecting deception in an increasingly digital world is both a critical and challenging task. In this study, we present a comprehensive evaluation of the automated deception detection capabilities of Large Language Models (LLMs) and Large Multimodal Models (LMMs) across diverse domains. We assess the performance of both open-source and proprietary LLMs on three distinct datasets—real-life trial interviews (RLTD), instructed deception in interpersonal scenarios (MU3D), and deceptive reviews (OpSpam). We systematically analyze the effectiveness of different experimental setups for deception detection, including zero-shot and few-shot approaches with random or similarity-based in-context example selection. Our findings indicate that fine-tuned LLMs achieve state-of-the-art performance on textual deception detection, whereas LMMs struggle to fully leverage multimodal cues, particularly in real-world settings. Additionally, we analyze the impact of auxiliary features, such as non-verbal gestures, video summaries, and evaluate the effectiveness of different promptingstrategies, such as direct label generation and post-hoc reasoning generation. Experiments unfold that reasoning-based predictions do not consistently improve performance over direct classification, contrary to the expectations.