There are individual Christians as well as theological traditions that consider lying to be intrinsically wrong. For instance, the church of Rome considers lying to be intrinsically wrong:
Mind you, Rome has fudge factors. You also have some Calvinists like John Murray, Vern Poythress, and Wayne Grudem who think lying is intrinsically wrong.
However, even Christians who think lying is always illicit may think deception is sometimes licit. If, though, you think lying is inherently wrong, then it's arguable that you should think deception is even worse than lying.
On the one hand, it's possible for a true statement to be deceptive. This is sometimes called a half truth, contextual lie, or lie by omission. What you say is true, but misleading, because you leave out crucial information, causing the listener to draw a false inference. Their interpretation of your statement depends as much on what you don't say as what you do say. So you can manipulate their interpretation by controlling the flow of information. By omitting a key piece of information. This goes to the question of whether lies and deceitful statements are interchangeable, which depends on how you define a lie.
On the other hand, some lies are not deceptive insofar as some lies lack credibility. For instance, when I'm waiting in line at the checkout stand, I see the screaming headlines of the National Enquirer. These usually involve sensational claims about celebrities.
Now, I know that many of these headlines are lies. The sensational headlines are bait. A come-on to lure buyers. The headlines are transparently hyperbolic.
But in that respect, the lies aren't deceptive because the lies aren't plausible. To be deceptive, the headlines would have to be believable.
In that regard, it isn't even clear if the lying headlines carry the intention to deceive, or if they are merely designed to pique the curiosity of shoppers who take an interest in tabloid fare. Presumably, regular readers (yes, apparently they exist) of the National Enquirer know by experience that the main story will be a letdown compared to the catchy headlines. But they still have an appetite for gossip about the trashy lives of the rich and infamous.
Or take a reflexive liar like Hillary Clinton. In a sense, her lies are not deceptive because you never expect her to tell the truth. Same thing with the White House Press secretary–of either party. His job is to defend administration policy, no matter how stupid. Stick up for whatever the President said, no matter how stupid. Reporters don't expect him to give straight answers.
Or public health officials. They think the real danger is mass panic or public hysteria. So they typically downplay a hazard.
The list goes on. People who lie for a living. What they say isn't persuasive, because you know in advance that they don't mean it.
Credibility (or the lack thereof) has both objective and subjective features. Some claims are patently absurd. Their falsity should be obvious. But what is obvious to reasonable people may not be obvious to gullible people. Some credulous people find some incredible statements credible–or even compelling. So it's person-variable.
Likewise, a deception needn't be an outright falsehood. In addition, the meaning of deception is ambiguous: It can either denote the attempt to deceive someone, or the successful result. Compare two statements:
i) I was lied to
ii) I was deceived
In that regard, if you think lying is always wrong, then it's even worse to be a deceiver than a liar. A liar is merely someone who pedals lies whereas a deceiver is someone whose deceptions are convincing. He intends to deceive, and he succeeds.
So people who think lying is always wrong while deception is sometimes permissible have it backwards. Given their view of lying, they ought to view deception as even worse.