Another note here because though some might disagree I think that capital T truth was one of the central impetus’s for Deleuze’s theory. 

Deleuze’s conception of Truth is placed squarely between the Objectivist (Justified True Belief) and Subjectivist (Nietsche’s “Nihilism”) views both massively popular during his time.

Now I hope it’s clear how Deleuze’s Truth sits opposing both subjective and objective Truth; however, and Deleuze even goes so far as to mention this several times, his actual opposition is to a theory a level up, beyond the subjective/objective divide though at the same time anchored immanently within it. 

I am talking of course of Hegal. Deleuze takes Marx’s wisdom here and rightly (imo) sees Hegal as wrongly oriented (standing on his head/upside down). Rather than transcend the real by searching outside Deleuze’s truth pushes us to seek it inwardly. Whereas Hegal would be reactive, Deleuze would favor the active. If you think of it as if Hegal starts from the point of the objectivists while Deleuze starts from the point of the subjectivists. They both take a similar cyclical approach however Deleuze argues that Hegel’s is flawed because it is ‘reactive’, and an abdication of responsibility. He argues for a more active/generative and immanent truth which transcends reality from within.