There are a number of civil suits and no, this deferred prosecution agreement does not in any way terminate, defer, or otherwise call a halt to those actions. Having been a very little bit involved in one of the civil suits (not as counsel of record) I wish I could add some vehemence, but my NDA would not be something I should like to chance testing. (There could be one possible exception to a slight extent -- I haven't kept tabs recently on the document disclosure suit, that is the Freedom of Information Act lawsuit, brought against the FAA by the Flyers' Rights group in which Capt. Sullenberger is a participant. I think it's still going strong but I can't say for sure.) Actually, evidentiary questions on a more detailed level omitted here, the contents and tone of the DPA will very likely boost the civil cases.
The criminal information, in other words the charging document, filed in federal district court is linked in the press release from Dept of Justice. Likewise, the Deferred Prosecution Agreement itself.
I'm not going to assert anything (for now anyway) about how the recently enacted FAA re-reauthorization legislation (reform legislation, to be fair) might result in holding Boeing's feet to the proverbial fire. Too much uncertainty in official Washington at the moment.....
Yet something isn't uncertain. The individuals who were at least subjects of interest for the criminal investigation are not saved from potential charges by the agreement Boeing struck. Whether it would make better sense to assault the corporate entity to inflict much greater scope and depth of financial, reputational and organizational (and even operational) pain is something I'm skeptical about. What the PRC does to Jack Ma doesn't weigh into the equation as I see it, but then I took an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States and that of the specific state which granted my license, so no surprise.