Ofcourse it worked the other way too. Entire armies of paid mercenaries could just take the money and run into the night.
The paper argues that lenders (or at least Genoese lenders who provided at least 2/3 of short terms loans) were able to work as a bloc with sufficient power to compel the King to eventually resume payments. As you pointed out, the King is mainly lending money to pay for armies. Being cut-off from credit is the same thing as being cut off from his army.
An interesting point that this paper makes at the end is that in a pre-modern context, lenders would have understood that sometimes... shit happens. They understood what the mechanisms a King would have for generating revenue, and that these revenue streams were not stable (taxation and silver shipments from the New World in Philippe's case), and that a King could in deep default "in good faith" and still be a "good enough" financial situation in subsequent years. That is in fact why the King even needed to borrow money from them to begin with.
https://www.bde.es/f/webpi/SES/seminars/2009/files/sie0927.p...
Not quite. Its criminal code inherits directly from that of the 1871 Reich (including quite notoriously Paragraphs 175 and 218).
But it is correct to say that its constitution inherits only back to 1919, and it never maintained any pretense of connection to the Holy Roman Empire.