Note that AFTER writing this post, I went back and saw in your signature that you have the f/4 version of the 70-200mm. That complicates the decision, a little, I suppose! Enjoy whatever you get!
Lets talk practical for a moment. The 85 1.2L produces beautiful bokeh, but it is a specialty lens. Not every shot in a session or a portfolio should have razor thin depth of field, so, for very versatile portrait work, as a tool, the 70-200mm 2.8 IS II offers much, much more, and costs pretty close to the same as the 85. True, its MFD is about 10" further than the 85, but, beyond that, it is useful in so many, many more situations, not just for formal portraits, but events, sports, nature, and landscape.
The 70-200mm produces DoF shallow enough to be impractical at times, meaning, just like with a faster but shorter lens, you have to be mindful of details that you might want sharp but can start melting into dreamy bokeh. Neuro could give you all the math, I'm sure, about focal length and aperture producing OOF areas in a photo.
Not everybody has the right head for 85mm. There are certain shapes of skulls and faces that benefit from the compression of a longer focal length.
Few working pros, if faced with a budget that allows only one lens, would go for the 85 over the 70-200mm.
Don't forget--the 70-200 has lightning AF--and IS!
Would I ever give up my 85mm 1.2L II? Only if, heaven forbid, forced to choose between that and my 70-200mm.