It's not a bribe, because the government claimed that Google owed this amount of money, and Google paid it. If this was a check to prevent Government action, you might consider it a bribe. If it had been paid to an individual, you might consider it a bribe. In this case, the law says that there can only be a trial by jury if there is financial damage. With Google conceding the amount claimed and paying it, there is no financial damage, and thus there can not be a trial by jury. The money is not being spent to purchase a trial without jury, it's a fine being paid to change the rules of the encounter.

Wait, in every single jurisdiction, when Alice wants something and Bob can do it, bribery is when Alice pays Charlie, who happens to be representing Bob for the transaction, to get the thing done. The canonical example of bribery is that a supplier (Alice) gives a company manager (Charlie) a nice watch in order to close a deal with the company (Bob).

In this case, Alice (Google) is paying Bob (the DoJ) with the expectation that Charlie (the judge in the case) will be forced to do something in response to the payment. Bob is in court with Alice to (ostensibly) get this payment as well as a few other things. Bob and Charlie here have no relationship. Nothing about this is bribery.

If this is a bribe, then paying your parking tickets is a bribe. If this is a bribe, buying something from an electronics store with the expectation that you can download the user manual from the manufacturer's website is a bribe.

Bribery usually implies that the payment is illegal and not part of the regular judicial process (otherwise, "paying damages to the government as part of a settlement agreement" would be bribery in all cases). And usually it enriches a particular government agency or individual.

In this case the payment is part of the judicial process, and achieves its goals even if it isn't accepted. So it clearly isn't a bribe.

It's not a bribe, because no individual is being enriched in exchange for taking a different decision than they otherwise would take.

It did refute the claim, you don't like the answer, very big difference.

Twisting the words around to fit your argument on the other hand is not convincing.