Distinctions like this are why people feel the government is hopelessly corrupt. It really makes no difference whose pocket it’s going into. It’s paying money to game the system.

In theory, isn't the difference that a settlement with a government agency can be used by the government for public good? Whereas a bribe to the official just makes the official richer?

I'm honestly not sure why that difference is of any importance.

You really don't understand what corruption is. Countries with widespread corruption are a lot more dysfunctional than this one.

The existence of countries that are even more corrupt doesn't make the corruption here any more acceptable.

I don’t think my comment was clear enough if that’s your response. This country is not especially corrupt. I agree we should root out and eliminate corruption at home. This article is not an example of corruption.

America's corruption is legalized which I think is worse because

1. There is a legal framework for the rich (and only the rich) to get away with their misdeeds.

2. Since there is a legal framework, even ordinary citizens will defend the rich being able to do this because there is a legal framework to do so.

3. Americans don't feel like their country is especially corrupt because of these very same legal frameworks.

Seems like a tautological argument for calling any law you dislike “corruption.” That isn’t particularly persuasive.

Fair enough. Our disagreement, then, is not about the acceptability of corruption, it's about whether or not this is an example of it. In my opinion, it's a very blatant example of it.

Exactly this, I couldn't agree more.

Making an absurdly large settlement in exchange for a favor is a bribe. It doesn't have to go into any official's pocket.

But I'm going by the plain meaning of "bribe". The law may define it differently (probably does), but that doesn't change anything.